House of Commons

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 30 November 2010

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

1. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of coalition Government under the UK’s constitutional arrangements.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

The coalition Government are sorting out the mess they inherited from the previous—[Interruption.] This always gets Opposition Members going from the beginning. The coalition Government are sorting out the mess they inherited from the previous Administration, including a woefully unreformed political system. That is why we are giving power back to Parliament by establishing five-year fixed-term Parliaments, why we are offering the public a choice, for the first time, on using a different and fairer electoral system, and why we will create fairer, more equal-sized constituencies in time for the next election.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Harriet Harman.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

rose—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

I beg the right hon. and learned Lady’s pardon, and I also beg Mr McCabe’s pardon as we have not yet heard from him and we want to do so. I call Mr Steve McCabe.

[Steve McCabe]

I feel so let down, Mr Speaker.

In her paper comparing the coalition to a difficult marriage, Miss van der Laan advises Back Benchers that they should

“never take advice from those who have secured Government jobs because their self-interest clouds their judgment.”

Is she right?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I think the hon. Gentleman asked, “Is he right?”, but Lousewies van der Laan is a lady; I think we should get such facts right. As I have said, two parties have come together to repair the damage left by one; it is as simple as that.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the coalition Government are breaking new ground along European lines? Might we send a message to the rest of Europe that actually we do believe in coalition Government in this country?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I certainly agree that in other democracies in Europe and elsewhere the idea of two parties compromising with each other in the national interest is considered to be a good thing. Only backward-looking Opposition Members regard every compromise as a betrayal.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

Speaking of which, is not the effectiveness of coalition Government a question of substance? On the substantive coalition policy of tuition fees, the House will want to know how the right hon. Gentleman, as Deputy Prime Minister, is going to vote. Is he going to vote for, is he going to abstain, or is he going to vote against it, as we are?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am delighted that the right hon. and learned Lady is finally referring to substance. For weeks now Opposition Members have refused to tell the House, or the students demonstrating outside, what their policy is. Is it a blank sheet of paper? Is it a graduate tax or not? The fact is that the proposal we are putting forward—we have a plan; they have a blank sheet of paper—is fairer for students than the system we inherited from the Labour Government.

[Ms Harman]

We are clear: we are going to vote against the trebling of tuition fees, but the right hon. Gentleman will not tell us what he is going to do. This is about what he said he stood for when he was asking for people’s votes. He said that as a matter of principle he wanted no tuition fees and that he would vote against any increase. People will judge him on this. If he votes against, that is the only principled position; if he abstains, it is a cop-out; if he votes for, it is a sell-out. Which is it?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Since the right hon. and learned Lady does not want to discuss her policy or policy in general, let me illustrate what this means in real terms. A care worker who has graduated from university, starting on £21,000 and earning more over time—[Interruption.] No, what people are interested in is what is going to happen to them in practice. Under our proposals, they will pay back £7 a month on average, compared with £81 a month on average under the scheme we have inherited from Labour, and £36 a month on average under the system of graduate taxes her right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party wants to advocate. I hope that we will now be able to have a reasonable and reasoned discussion about what our proposal actually means for graduates in this country in future.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

2. What recent assessment he has made of the accuracy of the electoral register.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of the accuracy of the electoral register.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the accuracy of the electoral register.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

The Government have not made such an assessment, but the Electoral Commission found in its March 2010 report “The completeness and accuracy of electoral registers in Great Britain” that

“it is likely that the accuracy of the registers remains broadly similar to past decades”.

It is clear, however, that more can be done to support accuracy. To that end, I have announced that the Government will speed up the implementation of individual voter registration from 2014, which will ensure that only those entitled to vote get on the register, bringing greater protection against electoral fraud.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank the Minister for that answer. We hear a great deal from Labour Members about the missing 3.5 million people. Can he explain what was done over the past 13 years to help them? What are our Government going to do to ensure that people entitled to vote can do so?

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, and I congratulate him on being elected to the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, where he can pursue his interest in these matters. He will know that when in government the Labour party did, to be fair, try a number of things, but the things it tried were not successful. We are going to introduce individual electoral registration and we are going to trial data-matching next year, so that we can see whether there are more effective ways of allowing electoral administrators to get people on the register when they are entitled to be on it.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does the Minister agree that some individuals deliberately keep themselves off the register because they are partaking in or are aiding and abetting benefit fraud? How does he think we should address that important issue?

[Mr Harper]

One of the things that we will do on individual registration is ensure that people will have to register with a signature and their date of birth and national insurance number details. Those will be checked against Department for Work and Pensions records to ensure that the voting record database is accurate. One of the things that we will be doing when we trial data-matching next year is looking to see what other benefits can be obtained from those public sector databases.

[Nick de Bois]

What plans does the Minister have to require voters to produce proof of their identity at polling stations?

[Mr Harper]

The Government do not have any current plans to do that, but we keep this area under review. In January, the Electoral Commission and the Association of Chief Police Officers will bring out their report on this year’s general election. We will look at their conclusions to see whether there is evidence of fraud taking place and whether we need to take any further steps to deal with it.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

My question was for the Deputy Prime Minister. Am I permitted to ask it?

[Mr Speaker]

You have to ask the question of this Minister.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Okay then. There was a failure to answer the question put by the deputy Leader of the Opposition. No doubt the—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This question must be about the electoral register: accuracy thereof.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware of the great efforts made this year by Glasgow city council to increase voter registration? For example, it has worked with minority groups and carried out targeted canvassing. All that work is going to show a big increase in the level of electoral registration tomorrow. Why are his Government not joining good local authorities such as that in Glasgow to get the 3.5 million people not on the electoral register on to the voters roll as soon as possible? Why are they instead rushing to have a boundary review that benefits the coalition?

[Mr Harper]

I congratulate Glasgow city council, if what the hon. Gentleman says is accurate, because the work it has been doing is excellent. He will know that I wrote to the chief executive of every council in the country suggesting that they work with the Government on our data-matching pilots, to which I referred in a previous answer. We want to examine what steps can be taken to enable local government to look at those public sector databases in order to get more people who are eligible to vote on to the electoral register, as Glasgow city council has done.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

What does the Minister think is worse: an inaccurate electoral register or gerrymandered constituencies?

[Mr Harper]

I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Lady, but that question really was not worthy of her. The completeness of the electoral register is as important as making sure it is accurate. It is perfectly reasonable to move towards fairer and more equal-sized constituencies, as this House has made a very clear decision to do, and their lordships will start debating the matter this very afternoon.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

According to research, the level of registration will fall on the introduction of individual registration, and we need only look at the situation that occurred in Northern Ireland to back that up. This was recognised in the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. Will the hon. Gentleman take into account the advice given by the Electoral Commission? If it decides that things are being done too quickly to improve the register, will he listen to it?

[Mr Harper]

I am pleased to say that I can do better than that. We have already considered the experience in Northern Ireland and the hon. Gentleman will know from my statement to the House that that is exactly why we will not remove anyone from the electoral register before the 2015 general election just because they have failed to register individually. We will leave them on the register to give them an extra chance and to avoid the situation that occurred in Northern Ireland, where there was a sudden drop in the number of voters on the register. I hope that that is helpful.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

3. Whether he plans to bring forward legislative proposals to amend the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 as part of his proposals for House of Lords reform.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am chairing a cross-party committee to produce a draft Bill on House of Lords reform early next year. The Government believe that the basic relationship between the two Houses, as set out in the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, should continue when the House of Lords is reformed.

[Mr Streeter]

I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for that response, but is it not in the nature of elected representatives to seek to acquire more power unto themselves, as has happened in Wales and Scotland and could well happen down the end of the corridor? Will that not bring an elected upper House into direct conflict with the provisions of the Parliament Acts? What does he propose to do about it if that should happen?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I certainly agree that it would be self-defeating if a reformed House of Lords tried in any way to mimic the House of Commons. Most bicameral systems around the world manage a clear division of labour between one Chamber and another. That is why the devil is in the detail—we must consider how long the terms are for any elected Members of a reformed House of Lords and in what manner they are elected in order to create a clear division of labour between the two Chambers.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman’s proposals on Lords reform refer in any shape or form to the historic convention on collective responsibility? I note that the new ministerial code of conduct refers to collective responsibility in exactly the same words as the old ministerial code of conduct, namely by saying that all Ministers must adopt the same position in public, but now contains the extraordinary new phrase,

“save where it is expressly set aside”.

There is an extraordinary rumour that the Deputy Prime Minister is thinking of not voting with the Government later today. Surely that cannot be right. Surely he is man enough to stand up and sign up to what he voted for in the general election—or at least to sign up to what he voted for in the coalition agreement. Otherwise, nobody will be able to trust a word he says again.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman always gets terrifically excitable, but none the less asks a question that is wholly irrelevant to the subject we are dealing with. That was absolutely nothing to do with House of Lords reform. I think—he was trying to be so clever that it is difficult to tell—he was referring to the coalition agreement and what it says about higher education policy, which is very clear.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his ministerial responsibilities.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister on the full range of Government policy and initiatives. Within Government, I take direct responsibility for the Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.

[John Mann]

A man tours the country telling people that if they vote for him he will abolish tuition fees. When he has the power, he increases tuition fees. What is the best description of the integrity of such a man?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

This must be the same integrity that led the Labour party to introduce fees having said that it would not in 1997 and to introduce top-up fees when it said that it would not in its 2001 manifesto. Labour commissioned the Browne review, which Labour Members are now busily trashing. The facts are—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and his colleagues do not want to hear the facts of our policy, but the facts are that our proposal will remove any up-front fees whatsoever, including for the 40% of part-time students at our universities. The fact is that all graduates will pay less per month than they do under the scheme we inherited from Labour. The fact is that at least one in four of the lowest paid graduates will pay less in total than they do now. That is a progressive package; Labour’s was not.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

T2. Does the Deputy Prime Minister feel that the integrity of voter registration would be aided if electoral registration officers could make inquiries about the validity of suspect applications?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course they have the power to do that now. Under the individual electoral registration scheme that we are seeking to introduce, we will ask voters to provide three proofs of identity and residence in order to verify the validity of their claims.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

It is good to see the Deputy Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box. I hope that before the end of these questions he might actually answer one. I am trying to get to the bottom of his and the Government’s views on prisoners and voting. In an interview that he gave to The Guardian, when he had another job, he said he believed “the bulk of prisoners” should be given the vote. Is that his personal view or the Government’s view? Can he reassure those of us who are concerned about violent offenders and those who have committed sexual offences being given the right to vote that he can today rule that out?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the Government inherited a situation in which a 2005 court ruling had shown our current arrangements to be illegal and to fall foul of court rulings. The previous Government looked at the options for moving into line with the court rulings and there have been a succession of court rulings since then, most recently last week. We will provide our final response on how to make sure that our practices are in line with those rulings in the very near future.

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

T3. What progress have the Government made on ensuring that the banks meet their obligation to pay their fair share of taxes?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

A year ago, the previous Government announced that they would require—[Interruption.] It is worth listening to this as a contrast between inaction and action. They announced that they would require the banks to sign up to the code of practice on taxation. Last month, only four of the top 15 banks had signed up, which was in our view completely unacceptable. We want the banks to play not just by the letter of tax law but by its spirit. That is why the Chancellor instructed Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in October to work with the banking sector to ensure that the remaining banks implemented the code by the end of this month, and I can today confirm that all the top 15 banks have now signed the code. That is an extra 11 banks in one month versus the four that signed previously. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First, I want to hear the answers. Secondly, the greater the noise, the longer the delay and the fewer Back Benchers will have a chance to be called. That would be a great pity.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

T9. If the right hon. Gentleman had his time again, would he be for or against tuition fees?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I would be for a system that provided a fair settlement for students. As I said before, unlike the system that we inherited from the hon. Gentleman’s party, ours will remove all up-front fees paid by students and will only ask graduates—[Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members do not want to hear this because they do not want to talk about policy as they have a blank sheet for policy. We have a plan and they have a blank sheet—that speaks volumes.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

T4. I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s consultation on the freedom Bill. Is he aware that terrorism convictions have plummeted by 91% in the past four years, and will he continue to support the repeal of control orders and the ban on intercept evidence so that we can prosecute more terrorists and defend our freedoms?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I strongly agree with the assumption and the assertion that the previous Government got the balance wrong between liberty and security. Indeed, I think that is now acknowledged even by that great liberal, the current Labour spokesperson on Home Affairs. That is why we are conducting a review of how the anti-terrorism powers introduced by the previous Government are operating so that we can tilt the balance definitively in favour of liberty.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

If the Deputy Prime Minister is so confident on tuition fees, why does he not go to speak to the students who are demonstrating outside now? They would be very interested in his broken election promises.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I heard the hon. Gentleman’s leader on the radio the other day saying that he was tempted to speak to the students. When asked why he did not, he said that he had something in his diary—it must have been staring at a blank sheet, which takes an enormous amount of time, does it not?

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

T5. Could the Deputy Prime Minister update us on his plans for introducing a register of lobbyists? Does he expect the new chairman of Global Counsel, Lord Mandelson, to be on that register?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It must be a measure of Lord Mandelson’s confidence in the leadership of the Labour party that he has decided to set up on his own to lobby the Government directly himself. We are indeed moving ahead next year to set up a statutory register of lobbyists.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

A few months ago, the Deputy Prime Minister said, in a personal statement, that he thought the Iraq war was illegal. On that basis, for the benefit of the House could he set out what he sees as the limits of collective responsibility?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As I said before, collective responsibility operates, but this is also a coalition Government, whereby two parties with different views, different traditions and different perspectives have come together to govern in the national interest. That is why we are keen, on both sides of the coalition Government, to stick scrupulously to the open, public coalition agreement that we entered into with each other.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

T6. Given that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is one of the Deputy Prime Minister’s policy responsibilities, what action will he take to ensure that IPSA stops spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ pounds on its own public relations and its ever-expanding bureaucracy?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I of course acknowledge that there is a great deal of unease on both sides of the House about how IPSA is operating in practice, which is why it is right that its working practices should be reviewed and, where possible, strengthened and improved. However, the fundamental principle that the administration of our expenses, pay and so on is independent remains exactly right in the wake of the terrible damage done to the House by the expenses scandals in the last Parliament.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

On Lords reform, does the Deputy Prime Minister think it right that those who give large donations to political parties find their way to the House of Lords?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I think we need reform of the funding arrangements for political parties, and we are keen to work on a cross-party basis with all parties in the House to restore public confidence in the way political parties are funded, while at the same time proceeding with reform of the other place, as I described earlier, by publishing a Bill on House of Lords reform early in the new year.

[Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)]

T7. The Deputy Prime Minister will recall that last month I asked him about electoral registration fraud in Tower Hamlets. Will he agree to have a look at postal voter fraud, too? In Halifax in May, an astonishing 763 postal votes failed to match voter registration records. Does he agree that evidence is building of systematic electoral fraud in this country, which needs to be investigated?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, electoral registration officers already have the power to look into allegations of abuse, which are in some cases, as he has highlighted, very serious indeed, and where necessary and justified, refer them to the police. That is exactly what I would expect should happen.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

What is the big society?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I can tell the House what it is above and beyond everything else. It is a contrast with the big state. That was the governing ethos of the previous Government: every problem, every dilemma and every question, it was felt by the previous Government, should be sorted out by officials in Whitehall and politicians in Westminster. We believe—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman asked the Deputy Prime Minister a question. Members must have the courtesy to listen to the reply.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr Speaker, they are enjoying asking their questions so much that they are not bothering to listen to the answer.

We believe in empowering individuals, communities and families to be able to do what they think is right to improve their lives in the way they think is best.

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

T8. On 26 October, the Deputy Prime Minister said that it was the Government’s“intention to set up a commission on the long-standing knotty problem of the West Lothian question by the end of the year.”—[Official Report, 26 October 2010; Vol. 517, c. 154.]Today—St Andrew’s day—can the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the establishment of the commission, its make-up and its precise terms of reference?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As my hon. Friend knows, reference is made in the coalition agreement to the issue and to the commission that we want to set up to look into it. I am glad to confirm that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is the Minister with responsibility for constitutional affairs, will be making a detailed announcement on the establishment of that commission before Christmas.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

To prevent the voting problems that occurred in Sheffield and other places, the Electoral Commission recommended changes to administration, which I know the Deputy Prime Minister supports and which I support. The commission also recommended a change in the law. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he does not believe the law should be changed. Can he tell us on what basis he made that decision and who he has consulted on it?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady has raised this matter before and it is indeed a serious issue. It is a question of trying to match the solution to the problem. Much of the evidence appears to suggest that the real problems were to do with the organisation by certain returning officers and the resources allocated to specific polling stations, not least the one that she and I know well in Ranmoor in Sheffield, where there were particularly long queues. I am open-minded about this but, in my view, simply changing the law without changing the resources provided to those polling stations will not improve the performance of the individual polling stations.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

T10. What reassurances can the Deputy Prime Minister give to Shepshed town council and many other constituents that they will have the opportunity to give their views on proposed new constituency boundaries before those are finalised?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As my hon. Friend may know, we are tripling the period during which members of the public can provide written submissions as the boundary review is proceeding—up to 12 weeks. If the Boundary Commission comes up with a revised proposal, that trigger starts again and there is a further 12-week period, so in theory there is a six-month period during which members of the public can make their views known. That is a much better system than the party political rigged appeals that prevailed under the Opposition.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister has said that electoral registration officers and others can bring to book and to criminal court those who are charged with electoral fraud. Is he aware that a major barrier to doing that is the cost, and that the Labour party has just had to pay a £200,000 bill for the work it did to expose Conservative council candidates who fraudulently stole a seat in Slough two years ago?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am afraid I cannot refer to the specific case. The hon. Lady makes her point of principle about the costs, which are important in themselves. Without knowing the details, I cannot comment on the costs of that case, but the ability of electoral registration officers to refer issues to the police and to allow the police and prosecuting authorities to take matters forward must always be protected.

The Attorney-General was asked—

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

1. What plans the Crown Prosecution Service has to increase the effectiveness of prosecution policy in respect of domestic violence.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

The Crown Prosecution Service has an effective domestic violence prosecution policy, with a 29% increase in the number of prosecutions over the past four years and successful outcomes rising from 65% to 72%. In saying that, I recognise the work put in by my predecessors in this office in trying to raise the profile of that appalling crime. The CPS keeps its policy under review and in September 2010 it published guidance on prosecuting stalking and harassment. In January 2011 the CPS will introduce a new local assurance system to support the conduct of domestic violence prosecutions.

[Ian Lavery]

Given the 24% reduction in the Law Officers’ Department’s expenditure, will the Attorney-General confirm that he believes that the CPS has the resources that it requires to deliver effectively the violence against women strategy developed by the Labour Government?

[The Attorney-General]

Yes, I can. There is no intention of diminishing that strategy in any way and it will remain a major priority of the CPS.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Women’s refuges provide not only a safe place for women and their children, but a valuable service in the prosecution of men who have committed offences of violence against women. Will the Attorney-General do all he can to ensure that local authorities do not cut funding for women’s refuges, given the service that they provide?

[The Attorney-General]

I certainly share my hon. Friend’s concerns that that area should remain a priority for local authorities. In each case, they will have to adjust their expenditure to the financial constraints upon them, and I am sure that one of the most important things will be for people, such as my hon. Friend and other Members who are aware of the good work in that area, to make those representations quite clear to their local authorities as well as the importance that they attach to them.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

2. What assessment he has made of the effects of the recent funding settlement for the Crown Prosecution Service on the provision of funding to witness care units.

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)]

None specifically, but I have no doubt that the joint police and Crown Prosecution Service witness care units provide important support to victims and witnesses. In particular, such units have increased the number of effective trials by securing witnesses’ attendance at court and improved the overall satisfaction of victims and witnesses with regard to the criminal justice system.

The CPS contributes £5.5 million per year and the police £6.5 million per year to funding those units, and the CPS provides a witness management system for use by police and CPS staff in WCUs. The CPS is committed to high-quality support for victims and witnesses, recognising its benefits to the criminal justice system.

[Mrs Glindon]

Northumbria witness care scheme has already streamlined its operations without compromising its service to witnesses and victims, and for that it should be commended. Can the Solicitor-General therefore confirm that that successful and efficient service will not be put in jeopardy as a result of the cuts to CPS funding?

[The Solicitor-General]

Yes.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

3. Whether he has had recent discussions with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on the application of international law in respect of Gaza.

[The Attorney-General]

I have had no discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on that matter.

[Mr Cunningham]

What is the position under international law when Israel intercepts ships carrying aid for Gaza? Can the Attorney-General tell me what the legal position is there?

[The Attorney-General]

The Foreign Secretary deplored the loss of life during the interception of the Gaza flotilla. He also stressed the need to establish the facts about the incident, without which, if I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, it is impossible to ascertain what laws if any might have been breached and, especially, what was done during the operation to prevent deaths and injuries. My right hon. Friend therefore welcomed the United Nations Secretary-General’s establishment of a panel of inquiry into the interception and both Israel’s and Turkey’s commitment to participate. It is also vital that existing national investigations proceed swiftly, transparently and rigorously to ensure accountability.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

What discussions and activities does the Attorney-General engage in with either Foreign Office Ministers here or Law Officers in other countries to ensure that countries such as Israel comply with their international law obligations and with United Nations decisions?

[The Attorney-General]

I certainly consult, and discuss matters with, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary as and when problems arise, and the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind also that my right hon. Friend has legal advisers in his Department who can help him with his work. The United Kingdom takes very seriously international law obligations and the maintenance of international standards of behaviour, and I can therefore reassure the hon. Gentleman that it is a matter with which the Government will continue to engage.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

4. What assessment the Crown Prosecution Service has made of the likely effect on prosecution rates of the comprehensive spending review settlement for victim support services.

[The Solicitor-General]

The Crown Prosecution Service’s assessment is that there should be no impact on prosecution rates. May I take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for Trafford victim support?

[Paul Goggins]

I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for his answer, and I am sure he takes very seriously his obligations towards the victims of crime, whose evidence is often crucial. Given the cuts to his Department and to police budgets, however, can he confirm to the House that he will uphold the standards set out in the victims code, and in particular that enhanced services will still be available to intimidated and vulnerable victims and witnesses?

[The Solicitor-General]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his ministerial experience in England and Northern Ireland, and as I am sure he will agree, it is vital that victims are enabled to get their evidence into court. Special measures to protect vulnerable witnesses and intermediaries and other measures are therefore available, and from the work that his Government did and this Government will continue we intend to ensure that victims get their evidence into court—because without the evidence there are no prosecutions.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

5. When he next expects to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss prosecution policy in respect of rape.

[The Attorney-General]

I have regular discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions on a range of criminal matters. Rape is one of the most serious and damaging of all crimes. I support the work undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service, with other agencies, to improve the way in which prosecutions are conducted and victims are treated in such cases.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

What impact does the Attorney-General believe that cuts in police numbers will have on the number of rape cases being investigated and the number of cases being referred to the CPS for prosecution?

[The Attorney-General]

It is not intended that it should have any impact on those figures whatsoever.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that sometimes we lose focus by discussing the process of decision making about prosecution instead of focusing on deficiencies in the investigation of the crime? Particularly with reference to rape, that is a real problem that police forces are having to cope with.

[The Attorney-General]

It is absolutely right that the investigation of rape is one of the most difficult tasks for the police. That is for a whole range of reasons, including the difficulties of getting victims to come forward, the problems that the police face in having to look after them properly when they do, and the difficulties of ensuring that they will come to court to give evidence. There are also the problems that have been experienced with victims retracting their evidence. The Crown Prosecution Service, the police and I are very much alive to all those factors, and we will continue to do all we can to improve the way in which this type of offence is handled.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

The Law Officers will be aware of the case of Sarah, as covered in recent weeks by The Guardian newspaper. Sarah—not her real name—has recently been released on appeal from Styal prison having served 18 days of an eight-month sentence for falsely retracting rape allegations against her husband following alleged intimidation by him and his family. The case raises a number of very serious questions about approaches within the criminal justice system to supporting victims of rape and domestic violence, and there is a risk that it will deter victims from coming forward to report these terrible crimes. Will the Attorney-General meet the Director of Public Prosecutions and me to consider the CPS’s approach to prosecuting women in such cases and to discuss ways that we can better support victims and witnesses of crime?

[The Attorney-General]

First, let me reassure the hon. Lady that the comments made by the Lord Chief Justice in the course of that appeal against sentence are being considered carefully by me and, I have no doubt, by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I trust that lessons may be learned from the way in which that case was conducted. However, it is also worth bearing in mind, as I am sure that she would acknowledge, that individuals who bring allegations and then retract them pose particular problems within the criminal justice system, and those cannot necessarily just be ignored. The hon. Lady knows that if she wishes to have a meeting with me, I will always make myself available, and if she wishes to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions, the convention has always been that she should have access to him as well.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the adequacy of privacy law in respect of the internet; and if he will make a statement.

[The Attorney-General]

I have not had any such discussions.

[Robert Halfon]

Given the ongoing problems with personal and private data protection, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that because of the inadequacies of existing legislation, he should recommend to the Government the establishment of an internet Bill of rights so that individuals’ ordinary rights are protected?

[The Attorney-General]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting possibility. At the moment, there is a framework of law which allows wrongful interference with internet privacy to be prosecuted. He will be aware that in July there was a call for evidence by the Government in order to look at this. In 2011, a new European Union protection framework is coming out which will also provide an opportunity to revisit this. Moreover, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is looking at the e-privacy directive, which will have to be implemented. There is no lack of consideration of this issue, and if my hon. Friend would like to provide input into that process, it would be gratefully received.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

7. If he will review the effectiveness of prosecution policy in human trafficking cases.

[The Solicitor-General]

All areas of prosecution policy are kept constantly under review. That said, the Crown Prosecution Service has comprehensive guidance for prosecutors to ensure that decisions in human trafficking cases are taken in line with the principles in the code for Crown prosecutors, taking account of the particular factors that are relevant in human trafficking cases.

[Chi Onwurah]

In the short time that I have been a Member of Parliament, I have already been approached by a number of women—girls, really—in my constituency who have been trafficked. Not one of them had seen a successful prosecution for their abusers in this country. Will the Attorney-General explain why his Government do not sign the EU directive so that we can do all that we can to ensure that those responsible for this trade are brought to justice?

[The Solicitor-General]

I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I rather think that we have signed that directive. The Government take issues relating to human trafficking extremely seriously. Indeed, I appeared in the Court of Appeal only the other day on an application to refer a sentence on the grounds of undue leniency and I await the reserved judgment.

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

Earlier this year, the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance in Glasgow highlighted evidence that showed an increase in human trafficking during large sporting events. Is the Solicitor-General concerned that the Olympic games in London and the Commonwealth games in Glasgow will increase the threat of human trafficking in the UK? If so, does he agree that signing up to the proposed EU directive is important in the run-up to those events?

[The Solicitor-General]

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). As a matter of general principle, any large event, sporting or otherwise, in this country—the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) will appreciate that Scotland is a separate jurisdiction in such matters—that may lead to human trafficking or an increase in human trafficking commands our attention. We will bear down on it as best we can. It is often difficult for the victims of trafficking to have the courage or ability to give evidence, but it is essential that we encourage them to do so and provide them with the utmost protection when they attempt to do so.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

8. What progress has been made in his consideration of publication of internal business plans of the Law Officers’ Department.

[The Attorney-General]

As has been outlined in the House, departmental business plans, as launched on Monday 8 November 2010 are designed to provide key milestones for the fundamental structural reforms being undertaken in a Department, as set out in the coalition programme for government. Where there are currently no plans to undertake major structural reforms, such as for the Law Officers’ departments, no formal requirement has been made to create a business plan. Nevertheless, I am keen that the Law Officers’ departments are transparent in their activities and that they present information about their priorities and performance in a manner that is understandable to the public. The Treasury Solicitor, Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate and the National Fraud Authority have published business plans for the current year on their websites. The Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office and my office have internal business plans and consideration is being given to the most appropriate form of publication.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that answer, but given that the Law Officers’ Department is in receipt of substantial amounts of public money, why should it not be subject to the same level of transparency as every other Department and have its business plans published on the No. 10 transparency website?

[The Attorney-General]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is conflating two issues. If he is concerned about transparency in expenditure, he can obtain such information without difficulty. However, I am prepared to consider publishing it in a new form. The business plan of my Department—that is those officials who work for me—has, in a sense, already been implemented. The Department’s number of employees has reduced from 60 when the Government came to office to 42 today. It has therefore implemented its savings and streamlined its operations. On the other departments that I superintend, I think that the hon. Gentleman will be able to see their direction of travel on their websites. We will see what we can do to ensure that that is set out with greater clarity.

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

1. What discussions the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission has had with the Electoral Commission on its monitoring of the conduct of the forthcoming referendum on the alternative vote.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)]

The Speaker’s Committee has had no such discussions. However, under section 5 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Electoral Commission must

“prepare and publish…a report on the administration of”

any UK-wide referendum. The findings of its report will be based on evidence collected from a variety of sources, including an analysis of referendum data, feedback from electoral administrators, designated organisations and permitted participants, and public opinion research.

[George Eustice]

One area where the Electoral Commission is a statutory consultee is the allocation of referendum campaign broadcasts to the designated yes and no campaigns. In a debate such as that on the alternative vote system, about which there are currently very low levels of public understanding, public engagement could be encouraged and increased by having a higher frequency of much shorter referendum broadcasts. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that the Electoral Commission takes its responsibilities seriously and moves to modernise our system of party broadcasts?

[Mr Streeter]

Under current law, the BBC and other broadcast organisations must have regard to the commission’s views when deciding their policy and rules about any referendum campaign broadcasts. Discussions have already taken place, and the Electoral Commission supports the BBC’s proposal to allocate broadcasts on the referendum only to those organisations designated by the commission, which will ensure a fair balance between the yes and no campaigns.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

2. What discussions the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission has had with the Local Government Boundary Commission for England on the likely effects on its future work programme of implementation of the provisions of the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill.

[Mr Streeter]

The Speaker’s Committee and the Local Government Boundary Commission for England have held no such discussions. The LGBCE advises me that parliamentary constituency boundaries are not a statutory or material consideration in its review work.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

But is the hon. Gentleman not worried, as I am, about the huge variation in ward boundaries in the most recent LGBCE assessments? In the last two, there has been up to a 30% difference between wards in Stoke and Cheshire in the number of voters per ward. Will that not make it much harder to ensure that wards will not be split in the new constituencies envisaged in the Bill? I think most Members would rather avoid that.

[Mr Streeter]

It is certainly the case that there are variations in the number of electors in certain wards, which is one reason why, in the hon. Lady’s own constituency, the LGBCE is about to start work on reforming the wards in Slough borough council. Whether the Boundary Commission for England will take those variations into account is very much a matter for itself, not for the Electoral Commission.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

What recent representations and discussions has the Electoral Commission had with the Deputy Prime Minister regarding the real problems associated with second home voter registration?

[Mr Streeter]

I am not aware of any recent discussions about that very important matter, which perhaps afflicts hon. Members from the west country more than those from other regions, but I will take my hon. Friend’s representations to the Electoral Commission and see whether such dialogue can now take place.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Until now, local government boundaries have formed the building blocks on which constituencies are made up. It is important that local communities are understood so that electoral boundaries are easily and clearly understood by people who live within them. May I stress to the hon. Gentleman the need to make the case that local communities must take precedence in all decision making on future and current boundary reviews, which will affect parliamentary boundaries in future?

[Mr Streeter]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point, and the LGBCE does indeed take into account the wishes and interests of local communities in settling where ward boundaries should lie.

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

3. What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to support hospital chaplaincy.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)]

Last month the Archbishops of Canterbury and York appointed the Bishop of Carlisle, the Right Rev. James Newcome, as the lead bishop for health care, including the support of hospital chaplains. The Church of England works extensively with workplace chaplains, especially in hospitals, and is keen wherever possible to develop interfaith chaplaincy co-operation. We believe that chaplains of all faiths play a vital role in the support of patients, families and staff in hospitals.

[Nicky Morgan]

How is the Church of England responding to hospital trusts that have decided either not to replace chaplains who have left or to cut back on their chaplaincy?

[Tony Baldry]

Chaplaincy services are central to meeting the spiritual needs of patients, families and staff, and I am glad to note that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the noble Earl Howe, has recently stressed to hospital trusts the importance of chaplaincy services. We will continue to reinforce that message at every level, because we are all too keenly aware of the importance of chaplaincy services to those who are sick, the dying, their families and the bereaved.

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

4. What discussions the Electoral Commission has had with the Deputy Prime Minister on the effect on the electoral system of accepting young people onto the electoral roll at the point at which they are issued with a national insurance number.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)]

The Electoral Commission has had no such specific discussions. However, it has had discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister about how national data sources can be used to improve registration, including among young people, as part of the Government’s proposals for implementing individual electoral registration in Great Britain.

[Duncan Hames]

Even though the franchise begins at age 18, will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the benefits to young voter engagement of allowing them on to the register at age 16, when they are issued with a national insurance number, rather than waiting until the year in which they turn 18?

[Mr Streeter]

That decision is very much a matter for the Government and not the Electoral Commission. I understand that there is a range of views on that subject within the House.

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

5. What plans the Church Commissioners have for the future of Auckland castle and the Zurbarán paintings; and if he will make a statement.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

8. What consultation the Church Commissioners have undertaken with organisations in the north-east on the future of the paintings of Jacob and the Patriarchs in Auckland castle.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)]

I was grateful for the meeting yesterday that was chaired by the Bishop of Jarrow, which the hon. Lady helped to organise. As a consequence of those discussions, it was agreed that the lord lieutenant of Durham will chair a working party to consider over the next three months whether it is possible for the Zurbaráns to remain at Auckland castle.

[Helen Goodman]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that answer and I agree that we had a fruitful if rather cold meeting yesterday. In taking future decisions, will the Church Commissioners take account of the Christian mission in its widest sense because, as he knows, the castle is in a town with some of the poorest and most deprived wards in England?

[Tony Baldry]

The hon. Lady highlights the challenge for the Church Commissioners. I was grateful to her for taking me to visit Woodhouse Close church community centre and the Woodhouse Close church, which is in one of the poorest wards in the country. That demonstrates the Church Commissioners’ need to raise money to allocate to clergy in such parishes. However, we will consider carefully and seriously any suggestions that the local community makes that enable us to retain the Zurbaráns at Auckland castle. She must appreciate, however, that they are a drain on, and not an asset to, Church Commissioner funds.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s decision to initiate some new discussions with bodies that are interested in a sustainable future for Auckland castle and the paintings, but will he recognise that the paintings are a precious cultural asset of the north-east region? In their time and to this day, they make a strong statement about the emancipation of the Jewish community in the UK?

[Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The paintings were a strong and important statement by Bishop Trevor of the Anglican Church’s support for the emancipation of the Jewish community.

The Church Commissioners, by and large, do not possess pictures—we tend to own land and property—but I am in absolutely no doubt of the importance and identity of those pictures, which is why the working party that I mentioned, which will be chaired by the lord lieutenant of Durham, will consider ways in which the Zurbaráns can stay at Auckland castle, but I say that without prejudice to the wider statutory and charitable responsibilities and obligations of the Church Commissioners.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I am not sure that the Church Commissioners fully understand the strength of feeling throughout the north-east about those paintings. I welcome the statement on the working party, but will the hon. Gentleman ensure that it includes representatives from the whole region?

[Tony Baldry]

The hon. Lady can rest assured that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and others left me in absolutely no doubt, in the four hours that we were stuck together in the snow yesterday, as to the strength of feeling about the pictures in Bishop Auckland. We fully understand that feeling, but may I explain? If the pictures were sold, they would generate something like £500,000 a year in perpetuity, which could be applied to funding clergy in deprived areas, not least in the north-east. There is a difficult balance to strike, but we understand the importance of the pictures to the north-east. We will listen, which is why I am glad that the working party, which will be chaired by the lord lieutenant, has been set up.

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

[Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)]

6. What discussions the Electoral Commission has had with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on allowing UK citizens resident abroad to vote at UK embassies and consulates.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)]

The Electoral Commission discussed that issue as part of a round table event with Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence officials in 2008, but the then Government failed to introduce the comprehensive strategy that the commission sought. The commission, however, has recently repeated its recommendations that the UK Government should introduce proposals for a comprehensive electoral modernisation strategy, including to address how it intends to improve voting opportunities for overseas electors.

[Greg Hands]

I am sure that overseas electors will be delighted to hear that progress is being made. My hon. Friend will recall that I asked him a similar question last time round, after which I was inundated with e-mails from British ex-pats. One said:

“I have been abroad for 10 years now (ironically, working for the British Government) and have not once received our ballot papers in time to vote”.

Another says:

“As a result of poor planning on the Electoral Commission’s part, I was denied my vote.”

Will my hon. Friend agree that now is the time to consider having British subjects abroad voting in embassies and consulates, at least perhaps on a pilot basis?

[Mr Streeter]

My hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner on behalf of overseas voters. There is no question but that the cumbersome nature of registration requirements and the tight time scales for getting postal votes to and from overseas voters are part of the reason why so few register and vote overseas. As I mentioned earlier, the Electoral Commission has made radical recommendations to the Government about streamlining the procedures, and it is very much to be hoped that the Government will take those on board.

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

7. What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to support the work of the Churches Conservation Trust.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)]

The Churches Conservation Trust was set up by statute to preserve

“in the interests of the nation”

churches that have closed for regular public worship but are of historic or architectural value. For the funding period to March 2012, the Church Commissioners will provide a further £4 million.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

How many churches is the CCT currently supporting?

[Tony Baldry]

The CCT is supporting some 340 church buildings, all of which are of considerable historic or architectural interest. We are grateful for the co-sponsoring by the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, on a 30:70 basis. This is an issue that is bigger than just the Church. Some 45% of all grade 1 listed buildings are churches, and those buildings represent an important part of the social history of our nation.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

9. What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to support the work of the Church of England in rural areas.

[Tony Baldry]

The Church of England has a presence in almost every rural settlement and village in England and plays an important and intricate role in rural community life.

[Fiona Bruce]

Village congregations play an important part in community life in my constituency. What can the Church Commissioners do to support the widest possible use of church buildings?

[Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about the use of church buildings. The cathedral and church buildings division of the archbishops’ council has been working for the last five years to help congregations do everything that they can to work with communities to identify how church buildings can be used creatively to serve the widest community use. We now see extended use of church buildings, including as post offices, shops, libraries, internet cafes, benefit advice centres and citizens advice centres. Wherever possible, we want to see churches as living buildings where as much community activity as possible takes place, and the Church Commissioners will always support such activity.

[Mr Speaker]

No one is more grateful for the end of that answer than the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous).

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

10. What steps the Church of England is taking to strengthen and support the marriages of people married in its churches.

[Tony Baldry]

All Church of England clergy seek to give support and personal attention to those getting married, at the time of their wedding. My hon. Friend is to be commended for his work with the South Bedfordshire Community Family Trust, which seeks to provide relationship education and support in partnership with churches—a good example of initiatives taken locally to strengthen and support marriage.

[Andrew Selous]

What action is the Church of England taking to prevent sham marriages?

[Tony Baldry]

This is an issue that we take extremely seriously. The House of Bishops will consider next month what further advice needs to be issued to clergy and to diocesan chancellors to reduce the risk of sham marriages being conducted in our churches. The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds and I will meet shortly with the Minister for Immigration to ensure that we work closely with the Border and Immigration Agency to see that the Church’s systems for preventing sham marriages are robust.

Public Health White Paper

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

15:33

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on public health. Today, the Government have published a public health White Paper with two clear aims: first, to protect and improve the health of the nation; and secondly, to reduce health inequalities by improving the health of the poorest fastest.

The need for this White Paper is beyond question. Britain currently has among the highest rates of obesity and sexually transmitted infections in Europe. Smoking still claims 80,000 lives a year. Alcohol-related admissions to hospital have doubled in the last seven years. In recent years, inequalities in health have widened, rather than narrowed.

Professor Sir Michael Marmot’s review to my Department said that

“dramatic health inequalities are still a dominant feature of health...across all regions.”

There is a seven-year gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest neighbourhoods, but a gap of nearly 17 years for disability-free life expectancy. About a third of all cases of circulatory disease, half of all cases of vascular dementia and many cancers could be avoided by reducing smoking, improving diet and increasing physical activity.

We need to do better, and we will not make progress if public health continues to be seen just in terms of NHS provision and state interventions. Two thirds of our potential impact on life expectancy depends on issues outside health care. Factors such as employment, education, environment and equality are all determinants of health. They are, as Michael Marmot put it,

“the causes of the causes”—

the underlying factors leading to poorer health. Unhealthy behaviours, such as drinking too much, smoking or taking drugs, are part of a complex chain of individual circumstances and social causes, typically rooted in poor aspiration, adverse peer pressure and low self-esteem.

The human cost of poor health is obvious, and so too is the financial one. Alcohol abuse costs an extra £2.7 billion and obesity an extra £4.2 billion each year to the NHS alone. Although there are things we can do to help, we cannot resolve all the difficult issues from Whitehall. Hence the White Paper has one clear message above all others: it is time for politicians to stop telling people to make healthy choices, and start helping them to do it. There will be a profound shift in tone, attitude and outlook. Rather than nannying people, we will nudge them by working with industry to make healthy lifestyles easier; rather than lecturing people about their habits, we will give them the support they need to make their own choices; and rather than dictating policies from the centre, we will support leadership from communities, by giving local authorities more power to develop the right approaches for their communities.

The White Paper is a genuine cross-Government strategy. Through the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Public Health, we will put good health and well-being at the heart of all our policies. To do so, we will recognise that we need to provide support at key times in people’s lives. We will not only measure general well-being; we will seek to achieve it. For instance, because we know a mother’s health is key to a child’s health and development, we are investing in 4,200 more health visitors working with Sure Start children’s centres to give families the support they need; because we know those who are unemployed for long periods are more likely to be admitted to hospital and more likely to die prematurely, we are transforming the welfare system, ending the benefits trap and making sure that work always pays, through a single universal credit; and because we know more people would cycle to work or school more often if there were safer routes for them to use, the Government are investing £560 million in sustainable transport.

Subject to parliamentary approval, there will be a new dedicated public health service—Public Health England—which will provide the resources, the ideas, the evidence and the funding to support local strategies. Public Health England will bring together, within the Department of Health, expertise from a range of public health bodies, including the Health Protection Agency, the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse and the chief medical officer’s department. It will work with industry and other Government Departments to shape the wider environment as it affects our health. It will also develop health protection plans and screening programmes to protect people from health risks.

The foundations of good health are rooted in the community, often at a neighbourhood level, so we must strengthen and renew local leadership to ensure that these efforts reach deeply into communities and match their unique circumstances. Under the White Paper, the lead responsibility for improving health will pass to local government for the first time in 40 years. We intend to give local authorities new powers to plan, co-ordinate and deliver local strategies with the NHS and other partners, and to embed the foundations of good health in ways that fit local circumstances. Directors of public health will provide strong and consistent leadership within local councils. We also intend to establish the new local statutory health and well-being boards as a way of bringing together the NHS and local government.

Whereas before, public health budgets were constantly raided by other parts of the NHS, we will prioritise public health spending through a new ring-fenced budget. We will look to the highest standards of evidence and evaluation to ensure this money is spent wisely. The new outcomes framework for public health, on which we will consult shortly, will provide consistent measures to judge progress on key elements across all parts of the system—national and local. The framework will emphasise the need to reduce health inequalities, and will be supported by a new health premium, incentivising councils that demonstrate progress in improving the health of their populations and so reducing health inequalities.

We have learned over the last decade that state interventions alone cannot achieve success. We need a new sense of collective endeavour—a partnership between communities, businesses and individuals that transforms not only the way we deliver public health, but the way we think about it. Through the public health responsibility deal, the Government will work with industry to help people make informed decisions about their diet and lifestyle, to improve the environment for health, and to make healthy choices easier. Through greater use of voluntary and community organisations, we will reach out to families and individuals, and develop new ways to target the foundations of good health. Reflecting the framework in the ladder of interventions developed by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, we will adopt voluntary and less intrusive approaches, so that we can make more progress more quickly and resort to regulation only where we cannot make progress in partnership.

This is a time when the NHS and social care are under intense pressure from an ageing population and higher costs—a time when we must therefore put as much emphasis on preventing illness as we do on treating it. In the past, public health has been a fragmented and forgotten branch of the health service. This White Paper will make it a central part of everything that we do, and we will bring forward legislation in the new year to enact these changes. By empowering local authorities, strengthening our knowledge of what works, and establishing the right incentives to drive better outcomes, this White Paper will deliver the strategy and support needed to reduce health inequalities and improve the nation’s health. I commend this statement to the House.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his oral statement. I am sure that the House will also thank him for the advance copies of the White Paper, which were available before he made his statement.

On Sunday the Health Secretary promised a White Paper that would

“take a radical new approach to public health”.

Today he has published the White Paper, and it falls far short of his hype. He has had six years in opposition and six months in government to prepare for this White Paper, but it will disappoint many of those who are most committed to better public health in this country and most concerned that we still have a great deal further to go. For the most part, this White Paper is not new. It is not clear how it will help to improve public health, and it is not a guarantee that the big gains made in the last decade—in cancer screening, healthy food in schools, stopping smoking and free flu vaccines, as well as the big cut in deaths from heart disease—will be continued.

However, in the spirit of responsible opposition, let me tell the Health Secretary that we can offer general support for his aims, which are very similar to those that we set out in our White Paper in 2004. I can promise him close scrutiny of his actions and those of his Government, because as the White Paper says, good public health depends on much more than what the NHS does. As he said in his statement, education, employment, environment and equality are the causes of the causes of poor health. However, the Government’s wider policies, which will lead to higher unemployment, poorer housing, greater poverty and an end to the Sport for All programme in schools, will do more damage to public health than his White Paper will do good, and more to increase health inequalities than his plan will do to reduce them.

So what did the Health Secretary say to the Chancellor about policies that will see a third of a million public sector staff on the dole? How hard has he argued against the Education Secretary’s plan to axe the school sports partnerships, which have seen three times as many children playing competitive sport than six years ago, and nine out of 10 children playing more than two hours of sport each week? Why is it that everyone else in the Government is set to make announcements affecting public health—on alcohol taxation or pricing, for example —except the Health Secretary? Far from being, as he said, a genuine cross-Government strategy, the White Paper—like his last one, on NHS reform—shows that this a Health Secretary working alone and operating largely in isolation from the rest of Government.

There is nothing new in “nudge”, except the soundbite and how hard the Secretary of State is pushing it. We set out the importance of individual decisions and incentives, alongside the need for support services and Government action, in our White Paper on public health in 2004. The test for the Health Secretary is whether the Government will act when they can and when they are needed, especially to protect children. The legislation is in place to end point-of-sale displays of cigarettes. The evidence is there and the experts are clear. Cancer Research UK says that

“we need to put tobacco out of sight and out of mind to protect all young people. The Government has the opportunity to act with conviction and reduce the devastating impact that tobacco has on so many lives.”

Will the Secretary of State do that: yes or no?

There is little new in this White Paper, and little is clear about how its plans will improve health and reduce health inequalities. It is 96 pages long but short on detail. We welcome in principle the lead responsibility for improving health being passed to local government, but can the Secretary of State guarantee the powers and the funds that it will need to do the job? Will he confirm that public health outcomes will also be part of the operating frameworks for the NHS and social care, because it would be a disaster if the NHS were now to decide that public health was not its job?

We are concerned about the Secretary of State’s responsibility deals. What exactly does he mean by that? What influence will industry have over future health policy? What does he say to the Liverpool health expert and Tory adviser, Professor Simon Capewell, who said that health experts on the public health commission

“were outnumbered and outvoted by people from Tesco, Diageo, and other food and drink manufacturers—and the Commission went with what the industry wanted…which is a scandal”?

What does he say when one of his own advisers offers that view?

We welcome the health inclusion board and the new national public health service, although we thought that this Government were committed to cutting, not creating, quangos. But is not the fact that the inclusion board will tackle the health needs of groups such as homeless people, drug users, alcoholics and sex workers an admission that GPs on their own do not know, and will not commission, what they need for the future?

Is not this one of the first in a series of bodges that will be needed to make the Secretary of State’s massive reorganisation plans for the NHS actually work? Whatever he says, we and the public will judge him on what he does. Will he ensure that his £3 billion internal reorganisation of the NHS does not damage public health? Will he take tough decisions about Government action on tobacco? Will he make and win the big arguments in government about the damage to health that comes from no work, poor housing and bad education? In government, it is deeds that count, not words.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the strategy that is set out in the White Paper. However, he then proceeded to aim off in every other direction. He said that I was in opposition for six and a half years, and, indeed, I made it very clear six years ago that when we came back into government, we intended to ring-fence the public health budget, to create directors of public health who were accountable to the NHS and to local authorities, and to establish a public health service that was more independent and more effective. His Government could have adopted those proposals six years ago, but they simply did not do so.

What was the record of the right hon. Gentleman’s Administration? Obesity rates in this country are way above average; in fact, they are among the highest in Europe. Alcohol-related admissions to hospital have doubled in seven years. Sexually transmitted infections are up by more than two thirds in the last decade. Even smoking rates have not changed. Parliament approved a smoking ban in public places, but in the most recent years, there has been persistent prevalence of smoking. It has not gone down in the past year. One in five of the population are experiencing mental ill health at any given time. Those are the records of the Labour Government on public health. Inequalities have widened. In life expectancy, the gap has widened. In infant mortality, the gap has widened. On their own measures, the Labour Government failed in public health, and we are going to put in place a strategy that is truly effective.

Some of the leading international experts, including Sir Michael Marmot, have welcomed what is in the public health White Paper today. The public health profession also welcomes it, because it knows that we are committed to addressing the wider determinants of health. My colleagues across Government are direct participants in the Cabinet Sub-Committee that is delivering this strategy, which is the starting point for public health delivery. Not all the details are in here. We are going to move on to a tobacco control strategy, a physical activity plan, an obesity strategy, alcohol strategies and a range of other responses to the public health threats that we face, and we are going to do that across Government. Only today, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that we would do what we said we would do, and increase duty on the strongest beers while reducing it on some of the weaker ones, thus beginning the process of incentivising and nudging.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the responsibility deal. Let me give him an example. In 2004, the last Labour Government said that they would introduce front-of-pack food labelling. They wanted to introduce a single traffic-light system. All that fell apart in utter confusion. There was never a consistent front-of-pack food labelling system. The last Government never worked with industry; they worked against industry, and what was the result? A variety of different systems, and nothing consistent for the public to look at.

Only by working together on a voluntary approach will we start to make progress more quickly, whether it is on labelling, reformulation or activity with employers in the workplace. We will make progress, we will do it more quickly, and we will regulate only when necessary, rather than resorting to regulation and, as the Labour Government did, failing to make any progress and failing to regulate. That is not a basis on which we can deliver the public health improvements that we need.

This is a starting point for a public health strategy that will deliver the improvements in public health that the country requires. We are a Government who are committed to those improvements. They are central to improving well-being, and our strategy will deliver them.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is much interest in this subject but real pressure on time, with two heavily subscribed Opposition day debates to follow. What we need are short questions and short answers.

[Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on a White Paper that redeems his pre-election pledge to raise public health to a higher level of priority than was accorded to it not merely by the last Labour Government, but by the Conservative Government in which I held my right hon. Friend’s responsibilities. I congratulate him on delivering the first step towards that commitment, and particularly on the transfer of public health responsibility to local government. The White Paper proposals will fulfil the promise to make public health a cross-Government responsibility, and will deliver what has been described as the “fully engaged scenario”. That is the only way in which we can deliver our broader public health objectives.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. Derek Wanless said that we needed an “engaged” scenario back in 2002, but it simply did not happen. I know that many in public health feel that the transfer giving local government the lead responsibility on public health—which is radical and new—will, in many respects, bring public health back home. It allies the public health initiative and resources to the responsibilities of local government on economic development, the environment, planning, housing and education in precisely the ways that will influence the wider determinants of health.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s proposal to return public health to local authorities, from which a Tory Government took it away, but why did he not mention housing in his statement? It is widely accepted that homelessness, poor-quality housing, overcrowding and insecurity of tenure are major causes of both mental and physical ill health, and a major cause of inequalities in health.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. In fact, I did mention housing. However, I have also established in the Department a health inclusion unit—derided by those on the Labour Front Bench as a quango, although it is not one—whose purpose will be to focus specifically on some of the most excluded communities, such as the homeless and Traveller groups. Life expectancy in some of those groups can be in the 40s, and the gap in life expectancy and the health inequalities are a scandal. I have appointed Professor Steve Field, formerly of the Royal College of General Practitioners, to lead it, and I think that he will do a fantastic job in ensuring that the NHS, as well as local authorities, reaches out to deliver the health improvement that is needed.

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

I welcome the White Paper in general, and particularly welcome the commitment to rigorous and evidence-based policy-making. I commend to the Secretary of State the latest report of the all-party group on smoking and health, which I chair, entitled “Inquiry into the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tobacco control”. May I give the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues a strong nudge to implement as soon as possible the orders on control of the display of tobacco that were passed in the last Parliament?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. As in a number of other areas I have mentioned, we will publish a strategy in due course, and a tobacco control strategy will be published in the new year. Parliament voted for the display regulations and we are looking into that, but we have to balance the evidence on health improvements with the impact of such a measure, particularly the burdens on small retailers. We are also currently examining the option of plain packaging of cigarettes, which the last Government did not do. That might in itself be an important measure to reduce both the visibility of cigarettes and the initiation into smoking of young people in particular.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

Not so much nudge as fudge on this issue. Why will the Secretary of State not accept that giving those displaying tobacco and cigarettes time to adjust by allowing them to implement the regulation this time next year is good common sense? Is it not the case that the Government’s refusal to acknowledge the implementation of this regulation passed by Parliament can only be explained by there being an ideological objection to protecting young people in particular from the incitement to buy?

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong about that: we have made no announcement, and I have said we are considering it. More to the point, I have said we are also considering the question of plain packaging of cigarettes, which is being pursued by a Labour Administration in Australia, and which his Administration did not pursue.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The White Paper states that we are going to provide easy access to confidential non-judgmental sexual health services. Will that include better counselling for women seeking an abortion, and will that counselling include the information that has so far been withheld from women seeking a termination?

[Mr Lansley]

The support for women seeking the termination of a pregnancy should include the fullest possible information about the nature of that procedure and its consequences. Consent should always be fully informed.

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

There is much merit in what the Secretary of State has announced. Will the new outcomes framework, which will provide consistent measures to judge progress on key elements, include smoking cessation figures? As he well knows, 50% of our health inequalities in this country are created by tobacco use.

[Mr Lansley]

We will publish a consultation on the outcomes framework soon, but smoking cessation and the absence of initiation into smoking are clearly very important. Smoking is still the single largest avoidable cause of early mortality, and we must try to reduce further the prevalence of smoking. It has not been reduced in the last couple of years, and we need to reduce it.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

May I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that councils serving very rural communities do not lose out under the new regime?

[Mr Lansley]

All councils will be supported to develop health improvement strategies. When we come to publish the consultation on the funding of the public health budget, that will set out how, in addition to the resources used nationally, there will be significant resources in a ring-fenced budget for local authorities. Because of the nature of the health premium, that budget will be significantly weighted towards areas of greatest disadvantage and poorest health outcomes.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Whatever Government were in power, I would welcome an enhanced role for environmental health officers in improving public health policy. Given the depth of the coming cuts to local authority budgets, however, there is real concern, regardless of the ring-fencing statement we have had, as to whether there will be sufficient resources and capacity for environmental health officers. Does the Secretary of State intend to have an environmental health officer at chief officer level inside the Department of Health?

[Mr Lansley]

I have had discussions with environmental health officers and they are enthusiastic about the opportunity for much greater synergy between their work and public health responsibilities. They see their role as integral to the achievement of public health. Indeed, some of the greatest public health improvements of the past were initiated in local government and through responsibilities that are currently within environmental health legislation, so I am looking to the health and well-being boards to bring these responsibilities together more effectively.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that about 30,000 people a year in this country die as a result of alcohol, and that Department of Health modelling has shown that if we were to increase the minimum price per unit to 50p we would save over 2,000 lives a year? Will he look at the proposals published in the British Medical Journal to have variable rates of VAT so we can increase the price without penalising the on-licence trade?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an announcement today about the level of duty on beers, in particular. We have made it clear, in the coalition agreement and since, that we will act to ban the below-cost selling of alcohol. I think that that will make a significant difference. We will also in due course publish an alcohol strategy, through which we will examine a range of ways in which we can not only enforce the current legislation more effectively, but create an environment in which we progressively reduce the abuse of alcohol. It is very important for us to understand that we must distinguish between our relationship with tobacco, whose use we want to minimise—we want to encourage people never to use tobacco—and our relationship with alcohol, where we are seeking its responsible use, rather than seeking to penalise people who engage in responsible drinking.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Which part of the health service or the Sure Start budgets will be cut to fund the new army of health visitors, and where are they going to come from?

[Mr Lansley]

The health visitor programme is not funded by cutting anything else; it comes from within the NHS budget, because we regard providing support to families when babies first come home and offering a universal health visiting service that signposts other resources to help families as absolutely integral to the improvement of health in the future. That is funded from within what was an historic commitment from this Government to protect the NHS budget and to increase it in real terms over the next four years. We are going to fund this from within the NHS resources.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Males in the Blackpool part of my constituency have only a 56% probability of reaching the age of 75. Can the Secretary of State tell me what measures in the White Paper will help to promote the act of ageing and allow more of my constituents to reach a milestone that many of us take for granted?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Many aspects of the White Paper and subsequent strategies relate to these issues. In the long run, his constituents will find that the measures that have an impact early in life or which work through early intervention will make the biggest difference, as was made clear in Sir Michael Marmot’s review, in which he talked of a universal proportionality. Such measures include, for example, our universal health visiting service and family nurse partnerships, which are intervening at that stage. If we have not succeeded through early intervention, however, or many people have chronic ill health, we will continue to ensure through our screening programmes and local health improvement plans that people are identified early and opportunities are created for them to make lifestyle decisions that will improve their chances of disability-free life expectancy thereafter.

[David Cairns (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

I welcome the acknowledgement in the White Paper that about 25% of HIV cases in this country are currently undiagnosed. Will the Secretary of State therefore lend his support to the “Halve It” campaign, which is being launched tonight by the all-party group on HIV and AIDS, which I chair, with the Terrence Higgins Trust and others? The campaign aims to halve that number by 2015. That will mean fewer early deaths, fewer cases of HIV being spread and, ultimately, significant savings for the NHS.

[Mr Lansley]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Almost 22,000 people with HIV are unaware of their condition. We need to ensure, through the sexual health services, that people have consistent access to HIV testing and are encouraged opportunistically to ensure that they are HIV tested so that we can deliver the services they need. What he describes is one of the opportunities that we can examine when considering how the outcomes framework will measure the performance of local health improvement plans.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I have just learned that for the past year Hertfordshire primary care trust has been plotting to close the enormously successful urgent care centre in Cheshunt. If that happens, can the local authority step in, if its finances allow, to run the urgent care centre?

[Mr Lansley]

I was not aware of what my hon. Friend describes, and strictly speaking it does not relate to the White Paper. None the less, it will remain the case that local authorities, through current overview and scrutiny arrangements or future scrutiny arrangements, have the ability to ensure that major service changes of that kind are subject to scrutiny. If such changes are not justified in the interests of local people, they can be referred to me and I can seek the independent reconfiguration panel’s advice.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

The Health Secretary rightly underlined in his statement the importance of tackling obesity. Is there any truth in the suggestion that he has expressed concerns that plans to dismantle the school sport partnerships will exacerbate the problem of tackling childhood obesity and has he discussed those concerns with the Education Secretary?

[Mr Lansley]

No; the hon. Lady should not believe what she reads in newspapers. The Education Secretary is not scrapping the school sport partnerships; he is providing the resources directly to schools so that they can make the decisions on how they promote sport. From my point of view, I have always made it clear—this has been the burden of my conversation with my colleagues—that we are already supporting school sports clubs in secondary schools through Change4Life. We intend to maintain that and to expand the role of Change4Life, linking in to primary schools so that we stimulate activity and exercise for young people overall. That is entirely complementary to how schools, using their own resources, stimulate sport. With regard to competitive sport, they will be assisted additionally through infrastructure funding for the new school Olympics.

[Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his long-standing and personal commitment to public health as the best way of dealing with health inequalities. How do we stop GPs operating in silos and prescribing pills where they might prescribe exercise? How do we join up the pieces?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful for that question. The answer has two parts. First, the general practice-led commissioning consortiums will be members of the new health and well-being boards in local authorities to which I referred. They will participate in the joint strategic needs assessments and strategies through the commissioning framework, the outcomes framework and the quality and outcomes framework, which applies directly to general practice. The less we focus on processes, and the more we focus on outcomes for patients, the more general practice will be focused on preventive solutions, because they will deliver good outcomes at relatively low cost. To that extent, the preventive agenda in general practice and community health services will be incentivised through a focus on outcomes.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

What proportion of the NHS budget will go to local authorities to provide for public health and how will the funding reflect local health inequalities?

[Mr Lansley]

I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman. We will publish shortly—I hope before Christmas—the consultation on the funding arrangements. We started by establishing the baseline spend for public health, which was never identified under the last Government. It has taken months even to get to the point where we can establish what it looks like—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) mentions Julian Le Grand from a sedentary position. He did good work, but it included the whole of maternity services as a public health service. Julian Le Grand and Health England’s work arrived at the figure of £4 billion. In fact, the baseline is in excess of £4 billion, but its composition is completely different. We will set out shortly the structure and proposals for funding local authorities’ public health activity.

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

Given my right hon. Friend’s voting record in the last Parliament, and indeed that of most Government Members, will he advise the House what specifically he is looking to achieve through the tobacco display ban analysis?

[Mr Lansley]

Through our tobacco control strategy, I am looking to achieve, as we will set out, a continuing reduction in smoking prevalence. In particular, I want to identify how we can substantially reduce the initiation into smoking among young people.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I genuinely welcome the Secretary of State’s recognition of the importance of a cross-Government approach to tackling health inequalities. He will be aware that Sir Michael Marmot identified income as one of the most important determinants of health. Will the Secretary of State make representations to his colleagues the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to ensure that everyone can have an adequate income, from those reliant on out-of-work benefits to those who are in employment?

[Mr Lansley]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. Sir Michael Marmot has generously welcomed the White Paper’s proposals and its thrust. He made a specific proposal about a specific standard of living related to health—effectively a basic income proposal. That is not the Government’s proposal, but we intend to act on the other five domains in his report, the effect of which, among other things, will be to ensure that the welfare to work programme—the most ambitious and comprehensive programme ever initiated by any Government in this country to take people off benefits into work—will support people not only through better disability benefit assessments, which will help in health assessments, but by ensuring that people in work are healthier because they are less likely to be poverty and more likely to be free of the distress associated with unemployment.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

In St Albans we are lucky that people live for quite a long time, but often elderly care packages are not put in place to allow elderly care patients to come out of hospital and into adult social care services. Will the proposals in the White Paper to give local government more control help to ease this problem?

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend may know, we are acting already. Through the spending review we have made very clear the NHS commitment to support local authorities in the delivery of adult social care responsibility, particularly through the integration of health and social care. That includes £70 million this year for re-ablement, £150 million in the next financial year for more re-ablement activity and nearly £650 million in the next financial year in direct support from the NHS for preventive and other activities to support social care. That will make a big difference to her constituents.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Hull city council’s recent record is of raising sports charges, blocking free swimming, axing free healthy school meals, dragging its feet on smoking and allowing junk food outlets to open near schools. In the light of that record, I am concerned about local authorities taking control of public health. What safeguards will there be regarding local authorities whose public health agenda is more from the era of “Life on Mars”?

[Mr Lansley]

There we have it: the Labour party as the opponent of local government. I am sure that people will recognise that when we arrive at local government election time. The Labour party has never trusted local government but we are going to trust it. We are going to give it not only greater freedoms but greater powers and responsibilities. Not every local authority will be brilliantly successful, but at least local authorities are directly accountable to the people who elect them—those for whom the authorities will deliver services.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Many of the measures that my right hon. Friend proposes, such as the plain packaging of tobacco, forcing responsible drinkers to pay more for alcohol in supermarkets than they otherwise would and, bizarrely, forcing employers to allow women to breastfeed at work are a triumph not for public health but for the nanny state—something that we thought had gone out with the previous Government. Why is he still so wedded to the nanny state?

[Mr Lansley]

I am wedded to achieving improvements in public health. Interestingly, today I have been accused both of being an exponent of the nanny state and of having abandoned it in favour of “nudge”. The truth is that, as one sees in the White Paper, there is a clear philosophy here that we will pursue a voluntary approach, regulate only where necessary and seek to have less intrusive and less interventionist approaches in order to make more progress more quickly. If we do not make progress through voluntary approaches, we will of course still have to protect the public’s health and we will seek other measures to do so, but they have been tested to destruction by the previous Administration. It did not happen—they did not succeed and they did not improve public health—but we are determined to do so.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State consistently comes to the House and announces policies that seem to have been written on the back of a fag packet from the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), but in his explanation on this morning’s “Today” programme the Secretary of State could not even make his mind up about the fag packet. Does he understand that the time allowed for the implementation of legislation that has been passed by the House was meant to allow people who are consequential in delivering that policy enough time to plan for it? The delay that he has introduced has made it more difficult for people such as the newsagents whom he spoke about in his statement because they have to prepare. Are we going to have branding or not? Will packets be on display or not? What is the Government’s policy?

[Mr Lansley]

I think that I have already answered that question. The hon. Gentleman at least among Opposition Members seems to have understood what it is to be in opposition: the point is simply to oppose and that is all he is doing. This is a positive statement and he should address it in that light.

[Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree with local GPs in my constituency that one way to help reduce health inequalities and spend money in the NHS better is to review reporting mechanisms in the NHS and how they impact on referral decisions, particularly in-house referrals?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes. I know that the GPs in Cheshire are a very go-ahead group and I am looking forward to seeing how they take on these responsibilities. I have seen GPs recently make presentations showing that they can really take a grip on referral patterns. They can see referrals not just in terms of trying to interpret patterns and numbers, but on the basis of clinical judgment. The combination of clinical judgment and understanding and knowledge of commissioning and contracting leverage is the basis from which we can improve overall the commissioning of activity for patients.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State mentioned that the Government are investing £560 million in encouraging sustainable forms of transport, such as walking and cycling, but given that the Department for Transport is systematically un-ring-fencing many of the transport budgets for local government, what guarantees can he give that that pot of money will be spent on that specific purpose?

[Mr Lansley]

We have been very clear in the spending review and subsequent announcements that we will take the ring fence off many of the grants provided to local government, because we trust local government and we expect those in local government who are responsible for such things to be accountable to their electors. Where public health is concerned—this is separate from the point the hon. Gentleman makes—NHS money will be ring-fenced in the hands of local authorities for health gain. There will be many appropriate uses, so the ring fence will in no sense, I hope, have a constraining effect.

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I am sure that, like me, the Secretary of State recognises that different population groups offer and present different public health challenges; for example, the Asian community has higher rates of cardiovascular disease. Does he agree that the White Paper presents an excellent opportunity for local authorities to address specific local concerns that are relevant to their NHS populations?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I do. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The structure proposed in the NHS reform White Paper in July was to bring local authorities and the NHS together to undertake joint strategic needs assessments leading to a combined strategy. Understanding the causes of ill health, and understanding where ill health is occurring and where the greatest areas of unmet need are in a community, will impact positively both on NHS commissioning and on local authorities.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I welcome the proposal to give public health responsibility to local government, but will the Secretary of State assure the House that his intention is to build on proven successful initiatives, such as the family nurse partnership that works with teen mothers in my constituency, and health advocates? In contrast to GPs who, when offered an opportunity to give out membership of slimming clubs, managed to give only one in six months, health advocates managed to gain about 2,000 regular participants in slimming clubs, thus helping to deal with the obesity problem in Slough.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. At least I know that she supports the proposal to transfer the responsibility to local government—not something I discovered from the reply of the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). The short answer is that I have already announced that over the next four years we will double the number of family nurse partnerships, so we shall indeed support them. More than that, as Sir Michael Marmot made clear, it is vital that we combine the targeted support that the FNPs can give and a restored universal health visiting service to help every family as they start out.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

One of the clearest indicators of health inequalities is life expectancy. In two near-neighbouring wards in Milton Keynes, there is a variation of 12 years, which is a staggering figure. How can we address this problem?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The truth is that we know we have to take action nationally, and we will, not only through health protection but through much more effective health screening, immunisation programmes and an early start in the health visitor programme, for example. It will be for his local authorities and communities to get together to ask how they can address the inequalities. That will be vital to achieving health improvement in his community.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Last year, Birmingham had about 500 confirmed cases of tuberculosis and there were calls for the city council to have compulsory city-wide inoculation programmes. Under the Secretary of State’s newly conferred powers, is that something that local authorities could now do?

[Mr Lansley]

No; the response to infectious diseases will continue to be the responsibility of the Department of Health, with a more integrated Public Health England incorporating the responsibilities of the Health Protection Agency and recommendations from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and others. There was a lot of important debate about the discontinuation of the BCG inoculation. My view is that targeted action in areas with high prevalence of TB—as there is in a small number of places—is more appropriate than the introduction of any generalised inoculation at this stage.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

But when and how will action be taken on the evil of cheap supermarket booze?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will not have to wait long for announcements from hon. Friends of mine in the Government.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Is not part of the problem the way in which Departments continue to operate in silos, so the Secretary of State for Education can cut the school sports initiatives with no impact on educational outcomes, but massive impacts on health? The Department of Health can consistently underfund children’s health services such as speech therapy and mental health, with very little impact on the Minister’s Department but massive impact on education outcomes. Is the statement not just evidence of more silo working?

[Mr Lansley]

That is all complete nonsense. On sport and activity in schools, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is supporting schools and mainstreaming funding for sport and physical activity into school budgets; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport is working to support competitive sport and the sport Olympics; and I am working to stimulate physical activity through Change4Life school sports clubs, increasingly in the primary sector as well as in the secondary sector. We are working on all that together and it is entirely complementary.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Given the commitment to popular choice, can my right hon. Friend confirm that when responsibility for putting fluoride into drinking water is taken away from strategic health authorities, the people who have the final say on the matter will be the people who drink the water?

[Mr Lansley]

The responsibility will be transferred to local authorities, and they will have the same obligation to consult their population as exists in the present legislation. In my view, local authorities are more accountable to the population that they serve than strategic health authorities have been in the past.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said in his statement that politicians need “to stop telling people to make healthy choices” and actually help them to do it. He said that they need to stop nannying people, but nudge them “to make healthy lifestyles easier”, and that “rather than lecturing people…we will give them the support they need to make their own choices”. Can he explain how failing to implement the tobacco display policy is forwarding those aims?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady does not seem to understand. We have made no announcement in relation to the tobacco display regulations—[Interruption.] They were approved by Parliament before the election. We have made it clear that we are looking at a tobacco control strategy. I made it clear just now at the Dispatch Box that, beyond anything done by the previous Government, I am considering the question of the plain packaging of cigarettes, which in itself could be a significant additional weapon in our armoury to reduce the initiation of smoking among young people and the visibility of cigarettes. When we publish a tobacco control strategy, we will weigh up the wide range of such factors.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Harlow parents will welcome the extra support for Sure Start, particularly after the scares from the Opposition at the last election. Will my right hon. Friend set out the measures that the White Paper takes to support other local charities that do so much to combat drug and alcohol abuse in my constituency and elsewhere?

[Mr Lansley]

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says. I appreciated visiting a children’s centre in Roehampton just this morning to see how it was bringing together all the opportunities. Important among those was the relationship with health visitors and their signposting role in relation to that service and others. Through the White Paper, we will, in a number of respects with which I shall not detain the House now, focus on how we can work with social enterprises, the voluntary sector and charities in order to deliver health improvements. As that will involve factors such as behaviour change, the ability of charities to work with people at a personal level and to be highly innovative will be important in making it successful.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I welcome the liberation of public health from its ivory tower. It will be able to do much more good in the real world. Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about how the health and well-being partnerships might work with businesses, the police and other relevant agencies to reduce alcohol-related admissions to hospital?

[Mr Lansley]

When we publish the alcohol strategy, there will be more to say about that, but it is already clear that we can do much more on local community alcohol partnerships, which have demonstrated their success in places such as St Neots in Huntingdonshire, so that enforcement and work to prevent young people from purchasing alcohol when they should not do so is much more successful. We can also work much more effectively on improving alcohol labelling, and we are working through the responsibility deal to look at those opportunities, too.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Does he agree that in local areas it is important for local government to work closely with the voluntary sector, particularly on preventive mental health services?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I entirely agree. The extent to which charities and the voluntary sector can initiate new ideas is woefully underestimated. This is not just about local authorities, and still less about central Government saying, “Here is a programme, would charities like to bid to run it?” Even more importantly, we must be clear that charities should now come forward to anticipate the resources needed to improve public health, and to suggest their own innovations to deliver better health for their communities.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will recognise the description of alcohol treatment as a Cinderella service, which is sadly not just a seasonal description but often the soft target of cuts by PCTs. I therefore welcome the opportunity in the White Paper for pooled budgets and for co-ordination between public health service directors and children’s services directors to prevent and tackle alcohol misuse.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I think that through these measures we will help to integrate drug, alcohol and sexual health services, rather than see them in silos. Even in primary care trusts, those services have often been treated as completely discrete activities, because they have been related to specific targets that central Government have set, rather than part of an holistic community view of how we improve health.

Inside the NHS we are shifting public health to that degree of protection, because back in 2005 when the Labour party was in charge, the Chief Medical Officer said:

“There is strong anecdotal information from within the NHS which tells a…story for public health of poor morale, declining numbers and inadequate recruitment, and budgets being raided to solve financial deficits in the acute sector.”

Under Labour, public health was raided and denigrated; under this Government, public health will be given the place it deserves.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I support any moves to reduce the use of tobacco throughout the country, and that is why I support the smoking ban so much, but will the Secretary of State assure us that when we look at the tobacco display ban we will consider all the international evidence from countries such as Canada and Ireland, which have found that the ban has not been the slightest bit effective in reducing the number of people who smoke?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, and I believe very strongly that we must work on the basis of evidence in public health, rather than simply on anecdote and assumptions.

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and, in particular, the ring-fenced public health budget and the increased role for local authorities. Is he aware that under the previous Government many PCTs cut funding for public health and plugged gaps elsewhere?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and that was not all that happened. On the money available to primary care trusts for what is termed the healthy living programme, there is no correlation between how much trusts spend relative to health deprivation, so in places with the poorest health outcomes trusts on average do not spend any more on discretionary health improvement activity. That is why our proposed health premium is so important. The places with the poorest health outcomes will clearly have the money they need to undertake specifically preventive work to raise health outcomes.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the proposals to transfer public health to local authorities and, indeed, the ring-fencing, but will my right hon. Friend clarify how we will enforce the spending of that money on public health, so that there are no blurred edges and local authorities cannot fund their other services from within that ring-fencing?

[Mr Lansley]

I bow to my hon. Friend in his understanding of local government. My experience and understanding of local government is such that I know that the people involved are very concerned about improving health in their communities, and these resources will be available for that. Those people will not only be accountable to the people who elect them but accountable through the incentive mechanism of the health premium for the delivery of improving outcomes in the reduction of health inequalities. They will have an in-built incentive in the funding system to use those resources to deliver the outcomes that are collectively agreed, co-produced with local government. If they do not do so—if they spend the money elsewhere—they will not see the increase in resources that would otherwise flow.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

Given the Secretary of State’s support for Sure Start, will he clarify his plans for Home-Start, as several families in my constituency are concerned that it will lose funding?

[Mr Lansley]

I will write to my hon. Friend about that. We are very clear that we are going to introduce a universal health visitor service, which has been lost in recent years. That element of universal support to all families when babies first come home is an absolutely integral part of getting them on the right path. We think that not just targeted but early support for all families will have disproportionate benefits in the long run.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I applaud the Secretary of State’s commitment to tackling alcohol misuse and his determination to ban below-cost selling. However, does he share my concern that a definition of below-cost selling that is duty plus VAT, which would still allow supermarkets to sell a bottle of wine for £1.90 or a can of lager more cheaply than a can of Coca-Cola, will fail to deliver the outcomes that he is looking for?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend tempts me to pre-empt announcements which properly fall to my colleagues in the Home Office. I will leave it to them, if I may, to make those announcements, and we will debate the issue then.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Bury people will be happy and prepared to take responsibility for their own health provided that there are fully functioning children’s and maternity, and accident and emergency, departments at Fairfield hospital?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend and I have shared visits to Fairfield hospital on a number of occasions. I know how strongly his constituents feel about their access to services at Fairfield hospital and how well he has represented those at the hospital in their case for the retention of those services.

Points of Order

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

16:32

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have just had a statement which, although very important, did not have to be made today—a day on which we have two crucial Opposition day debates. Given that the Opposition day was moved from yesterday to today in order to avoid yesterday’s autumn forecast cutting into the time available, is it not a bit galling to discover that a statement has been put in for today? I hope that that has nothing to do with trying to distract attention from the problems that the Government face on school sport and on breaking pledges on tuition fees. We understand that there are occasions when there are urgent questions and urgent statements, but what can be done to protect the time for Opposition days?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. He will understand that the timing of statements is a matter for the Government. He will also know that the Procedure Committee is considering ministerial statements, and he may well want to make some points to that Committee. Of course, he can always raise the matter again at business questions on Thursday.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I express my total sympathy with the shadow spokesman’s point, given that I remember how immensely frustrating it was for us when we were on the Opposition side of the House and the Labour Government did that time and again?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you very much—score draw.

[David Cairns (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that this is not an own goal. On much the same point, has not the timing of these Opposition day debates robbed us of the opportunity to have a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is today announcing the biggest package of devolutionary changes affecting this House not here but in the media and in the Scottish Parliament? As the Under-Secretary of State from the Scotland Office is now on the Treasury Bench, perhaps he could come to the Dispatch Box and tell this House what his boss is busily telling the media.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order, but as he well knows, matters on the timing of business lie with the Government, not Mr. Speaker. However, I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunity to debate the issues that he has raised at some point in the parliamentary calendar.

Bills Presented

Scotland Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Michael Moore, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mrs Secretary May, Mr Secretary Hammond, Danny Alexander, Mr David Gauke and David Mundell, presented a Bill to amend the Scotland Act 1998 and make provision about the functions of the Scottish Ministers; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 115) with explanatory notes (Bill 115-EN).

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mrs Secretary May, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr Secretary Hague, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Secretary Clarke and Nick Herbert, presented a Bill to make provision about the administration and governance of police forces; about the licensing of, and for the imposition of a late night levy in relation to, the sale and supply of alcohol; for the repeal of sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and for the prohibition of certain activities in Parliament Square; to enable provision in local authority byelaws to include powers of seizure and forfeiture; about the control of dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs; to restrict the issue of arrest warrants for certain extra-territorial offences; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 116) with explanatory notes (Bill 116-EN).

Waste Recycling (End Use Register) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Peter Bottomley, supported by Clive Efford, Caroline Lucas, Mr Don Foster and Robert Halfon, presented a Bill to require certain authorities to maintain a register of the destination of recycled materials; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January 2011, and to be printed (Bill 117).

Consumer Protection (Private Car Parks)

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

16:36

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision relating to the licensing of charging, publicly-available, privately-owned car parks; to require local authorities to introduce a licensing system for such car parks; to enable local authorities to recover the costs of such a licensing scheme from car park operators; and for connected purposes.

Hon. Members are sent to this place for essentially two reasons: to represent the interests of our constituents and to ensure the passage of good legislation that will enhance and protect the well-being of citizens. I believe that the proposed Bill would do both.

I remind the House that there are two kinds of car park provider in this country. First, there are local authority-controlled car parks, which are covered extensively by legislation. Secondly, there are private car parks, which are covered to a much lesser extent by legislation. I will not say that all private car parks are operated irresponsibly. The vast majority of providers treat their consumers with the respect that they deserve. However, there are all too many rogue car park operators who use unscrupulous practices, not only in my constituency but in the constituencies of right hon. and hon. Members up and down the country. The Bill would address that problem. Concerns have been raised not only by right hon. and hon. Members, but by the Consumers Association and organisations such as the Automobile Association.

What is the problem? Often, consumers who have used a publicly available private car park receive in the post several days later a threatening demand from the provider for a so-called penalty payment, alleging that the consumer has not purchased the correct ticket. Even when the consumer produces evidence that they bought, for example, a pay and display ticket, the private operator says that it was not displayed properly. That contrasts with the way in which local authorities run their car parks, where, if somebody can show proof of purchase of a ticket, their fine is cancelled.

The second area of concern is the way in which some unscrupulous operators, who make up the minority of private car park operators, demand payments for the most minor and accidental infractions, such as a wheel that is just touching the dividing white line between spaces. In one case that I came across, somebody received a demand for payment because they got stuck in a queue of traffic as they were trying to leave the car park and were timed out. Again, we may contrast that with how council-run car parks operate. There is an appeals system, and reasonable appeals often succeed. Indeed, appeals succeed in almost two thirds of cases.

The third, and perhaps most disturbing and insidious, aspect of unscrupulous private car park providers is the sheer scale of the “fine” that they seek to levy against the consumer. Often, there is a threatening letter with a demand for £70, which is hiked up to £100 within a fortnight and then further still as time goes by. Again, we may compare that with local authority-controlled car parks, where the fine is typically £50, reduced to £25 if paid within 28 days. We can see that there is quite a difference.

The threatening and aggressive letters sent to many consumers are causing a great deal of concern, particularly among the most vulnerable and elderly constituents of right hon. and hon. Members. Many people simply feel intimidated into paying the apparent fine, which of course is not a fine in any criminal sense, because they just want the problem to go away. Even people who would not be classed as vulnerable have come to me and other Members deeply concerned about threats to destroy their credit rating, send in the bailiffs or seek county court judgments. That means that many people simply pay the demand, which is how unscrupulous private car park firms make an awful lot of money in an unfair way.

The situation is starting to have a detrimental effect on many town centre businesses. I have received plenty of evidence from legitimate businesses in town centres, which have come to me to say that where rogue private car parks operate, they damage business. People say that they are simply not prepared to go into the town centre to shop or for entertainment purposes, because they fear that they will have an arbitrary penalty notice issued against them by a car park provider.

The question is, what is the solution to the problem? It is certainly not in my instincts immediately to reach for regulation or for the rulebook. I certainly would not advocate establishing some sort of national agency or quango, because the Government are quite rightly seeking to reduce the number of quangos despite the best efforts of another place. I am certainly—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but private conversations are getting much too loud in the Chamber. If people want to have private conversations, I suggest that they go outside.

[Henry Smith]

I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am certainly not proposing that local authorities should take over the patrolling of private car parks that are available to the public, or that the resources of the police should be used for that purpose. What I propose in the Bill is that local authorities with a licensing function should have the ability to license the operation of publicly available private car parks, in the same way that local licensing committees make decisions about the licensing of publicans for the sale of alcohol or cab drivers for the running of taxis. In a similar way, we could have local democratic control with a local focus, to ensure that there is better practice by the minority of unscrupulous car park operators. My proposal would also carry no cost to the council tax payer or the taxpayer in general. Simply, the system would be paid for by a modest application fee paid by private car park operators to the licensing authority when applying for a licence.

Coming before the House shortly in the freedom Bill will be proposals to restrict the use of wheel-clamping. I very much welcome that, but I fear that one unintended consequence will be that unscrupulous wheel-clampers will simply switch to issuing demands for payments from people, in the same way that some private car parks do. I believe that the Bill could be a useful way of closing that loophole.

There is provision in legislation already for local authorities to operate with private car parks. However, that requires the compliance of the private car park operator and the local authority, and of course, an unscrupulous provider is unlikely to agree to work with the local authority. Self-regulation could be a solution, but so far, the British Parking Association has not introduced an appeals process. It has a very small pilot scheme, but that has not been effective yet. It is therefore my pleasure to propose this motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Henry Smith, Mr Mark Williams, Anne Marie Morris, Gareth Johnson and George Eustice present the Bill.

Henry Smith accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February 2011, and to be printed (Bill 114).

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and as a new Member, I am baffled by the actions of the Government and their Departments. My hon. Friend and I tabled questions for yesterday’s Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport Question Time on the impact on participation in sport of the proposed abolition of schools sports partnerships. The questions were accepted by the Table Office and drawn in a ballot for oral answer. Subsequently, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport moved the questions to other Departments for answer, as you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have today received an answer to that original question from the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb). The reply is:

“I will reply as soon as possible.”

Are the Government and Ministers, as my hon. Friend said yesterday, trying to park matters that they are too embarrassed to deal with—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. This is supposed to be a point of order, not a speech. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is complaining about his question being transferred at short notice from one Department to another. That is a matter of business for the Government, not the Chair. He is saying that he is expecting a prompt reply, and I am sure that Education Ministers sitting on the Front Bench have taken note of that and that they will make sure that he gets that reply—promptly.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members should have been made aware, because the process was set out to them, that if they have concerns about written questions, they should write to the Procedure Committee for us to consider.

[Hon. Members]

It was an oral question.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am sure the House is very grateful for that point of information, Mr Percy. It was not directly relevant to the point of order, but never mind.

Opposition Day

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[7th Allotted Day]

School Sports Funding

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

16:49

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House congratulates the Youth Sport Trust on achieving major advances in youth sport over the past decade; believes that a good school sports policy must always be a combination of competition with coaching and opportunities for all to participate; notes that the number of young people doing two hours of sport a week has risen from 25 per cent. in 2002 to at least 90 per cent. last year, with over 1.6 million more young people involved in competitive sport between schools than in 2006; believes that removing funding for the Youth Sport Trust, cutting the specialist school status and dismantling School Sport Partnerships will undermine the Olympic legacy and the fight against obesity in young people; and therefore calls on the Government to reverse this decision, and to work with the Youth Sport Trust to find a solution that does not deprive children of the many health, wellbeing and educational advantages they gain from school sport.

We stand on the brink of arguably the biggest moment for sport in our country’s history. This is a one-off chance to lift the place of sport in our society and inspire a new generation. Today is a good moment to remind ourselves why we won the right to host London 2012. With cross-party support, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) set challenging but achievable targets that included, by 2012, getting 2 million more people physically active, 1 million more playing sport regularly and 60% of young people doing at least five hours of sport a week. This is no time to lower those ambitions.

Huge progress has been made in the last decade and now we must build on it. I was struck by this quote from the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, made just one week after our success in Singapore. He said:

“I congratulate the Minister and his Department on the progress that has been made on school sport. Specialist sports colleges are proving to be a success—there is no doubt about that—and school sports partnerships likewise. The Youth Sport Trust, which I visited just before the election, is a fantastic organisation.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 335WH.]

He is right: it is a fantastic organisation. We championed it in government, just as John Major championed it before us. We also built on his plans for elite sport. There has been a developing consensus on sports policy since John Major signalled a change in the early 1990s.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Should we not remind the House that the Government’s proposals are nothing new for them? In the 1980s, they did the same thing—they massacred sport, had schools sell off their playing fields, and cut support for youth activities. The economic crisis is not the reason for their activities now: they are back to their old bad habits.

[Andy Burnham]

I had the great misfortune to be in a Merseyside comprehensive under Maggie, and I remember after-school competitive sport vanishing with the teachers’ dispute in the 1980s. Ever since, I have worked in politics to put school sport back on its feet. It is the right of every child to have good sport while at school, and it cannot be left to random chance and the occasional good will of teachers.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Did not the Labour Government have a record of selling off playing fields? Any mention of that is a complete own goal for the Opposition.

[Andy Burnham]

What I will enjoy today is educating Conservative Members. When we came into government, we introduced rules on the sale of playing fields, which was to be allowed only if the proceeds from a small patch of the land were to be reinvested in higher quality sports facilities on the same land. The hon. Gentleman should check his facts, because that is what happened.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

On the question of selling off playing fields, does my right hon. Friend recall from his youth that most of the welfare playing fields were sold off because the Tories shut the pits and the playing fields followed suit—[Laughter.] In Tibshelf in my area, in a school that will now no longer be rebuilt, John Barker runs a schools sport partnership and has managed to get more than 90% of the kids to start playing sport again. What does he get in return? He gets the sack: he is one of the people who have lost their jobs because of this lot.

[Andy Burnham]

I noticed that when my hon. Friend made that impassioned contribution coalition Members laughed, because they have no understanding of what happened to communities such as his and mine in the 1990s, when the coal industry social welfare organisation tried to protect some of those facilities. Some are still there, but not all of them. Coalition Members have no understanding of the role of sport and how hard communities in former mining areas have fought to keep their sports provision.

There was a developing consensus, which was repeated just before the recent general election. A write-up of a Radio 5 Live debate appears on the Youth Sports Trust website and it says that, on school sport partnerships, Hugh Robertson said it would be wrong to dismantle “13 years of work” and, instead, “the party would build on” them. But that broad consensus has now been broken by the Secretary of State. School sport partnerships have joined a growing list of things that the Conservative party said it would protect in opposition, but has scrapped in government.

Let me make one thing clear: Labour Members would have understood if the Government had decided to reduce funding to school sport partnerships and the Youth Sport Trust, as long as they kept the basic school sport partnership infrastructure in place. What we are struggling with is having to accept the Secretary of State’s decision to remove 100% of their funding and demolish an entire infrastructure and proven delivery system that is improving children’s lives here and now. I cannot understand why he has done that.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

The right hon. Gentleman said that he would be happy to reduce central funding for the Youth Sport Trust and the curriculum and support for sport. Will he tell the House by how much?

[Andy Burnham]

The right hon. Gentleman was not listening. I said that I would have accepted a reduction in funding to school sport partnerships. [Hon. Members: “How much?”] I said on the media a couple of weeks ago that I would have accepted a reduction proportionate to the reductions made around Government. It is for him to say how much would keep the school sport partnership system in place. [Hon. Members: “How much?”] How much are hon. Members offering?

[Michael Gove]

Proportionate? Is that proportion a half, a third, 75% or 60%? Until we have clarity from the right hon. Gentleman, all we will have is an empty offer.

[Andy Burnham]

I will accept a package that keeps the basic infrastructure in place and keeps school sports co-ordinators in their jobs. I have said that I will accept a reduction, but it is the Secretary of State’s job to put forward a package that does just that.

What the Secretary of State has done is a senseless act of vandalism defying all logic, leaving people speechless. The Australian sports commissioner has asked how this country could dismantle a “world-leading” school sport system. The chief executive of the Canadian Olympic committee has taken the unusual step of writing to the Secretary of State to ask how, months away from a home Olympics, we can have this wholesale change in sports policy. We have called this debate because we want the Government to listen, to change course and to protect a basic school sports structure before it breaks down.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend was very supportive of me in his previous incarnation at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport when I came to talk about school provision in inner London. Is he aware that the school sport partnership in the London borough of Westminster, which is set to lose £400,000 a year, has, since 2005, increased from 55% to 100% the number of young people taking part in at least two hours of sport a week, including the promotion of inter-school competition?

[Andy Burnham]

They are astonishing achievements, particularly in an area such as the one my hon. Friend represents, where traditionally there have been difficulties accessing good-quality sports provision. I remember those discussions. For the children living in that inner-city environment, that is an unbelievable achievement, and they should be congratulated on what they have done.

Ministers do not seem to understand why people feel hurt and angry. They use provocative language and selective figures, and they seem not to understand what has happened on the ground in their own constituencies—or, worse, they do know what has happened, but they are not prepared to acknowledge it because it does not fit with their political purpose. Either way, it is very bad. If it is the latter, it is appalling.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

One thing that is understood by Government Members is that £2.4 billion has been thrown at this issue, and we have not seen any results—[Interruption.] Let us consider the right hon. Gentleman’s former Department. [Interruption.] On hockey, rugby, netball and gymnastics, the statistics show—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. [Interruption.] Order. When I stand up and say order, I expect every Member of the House to sit down, not to carry on shouting at each other across the Chamber.

[Andy Burnham]

It is an absolute disgrace for people such as the hon. Gentleman to stand up in the House today and say there have been no results from the school sport partnerships. Will he do me a favour and go and meet his school sport co-ordinators on Friday and repeat to their faces what he has just said in the House? I will be surprised if he is still standing after that.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

On disability sport in schools, my constituent Mark Eccleston is a full-time wheelchair user and a PE teacher at Chestnut Lodge, which is a school for children with complex physical and medical needs. He also won the silver medal at the 2004 Athens Paralympics and was No. 1 in the world in his sport. He says: “I feel strongly obliged to put in writing my thoughts regarding the Government’s ridiculous and staggering decision. I’m not sure who advised the Government on this issue, but they are obviously not fully aware of the implications that such a decision will have on school sport in general, not to mention the destruction that it will cause to disability sport in our schools.” Who will be listening—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. That was verging on a speech. May I remind Members that interventions are supposed to be brief?

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend has just made the very point that if we are going to provide high quality sport to children and young people with disabilities, we need to provide it with an infrastructure. We need people working together to give kids the best possible opportunities, but that point is entirely lost on those on the Government Benches. Indeed, let us look at the language that they have used. The Children’s Minister—I am glad he is here today—arrogantly dismissed school sport partnerships at the weekend as “centralised bureaucracy”. In other words—this is what the Government think, and we heard it a moment ago—those involved are expendable, self-serving pen-pushers who have made a negligible impact on the lives of our children. That is what we are hearing from the Government. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are talking about an army of 3,200 people—positive, passionate, motivated people—who believe in the power of sport to change people’s lives for the better. If nothing else, I hope that today they will at least hear some praise and recognition from those of us on the Opposition Benches for their efforts and that they feel cheered by that. I know that I speak for every Opposition Member when I say that we appreciate their commitment to young people and the contribution that they have made to the betterment of their communities.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I have received dozens of letters from children in schools in my constituency who have benefited from school sport partnerships. One junior school pupil, Demi-Leigh Hughes, has written to say:

“In my opinion this is wrong! I have heard of some bad things, but this tops the lot”.

The Government really do have a problem when it gets to the point where pupils—not their teachers or parents—are writing to Members.

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a formidable force lining up against the Government, and the chorus of disapproval grows by the day. Today, 75 prominent Olympians and Paralympians have written to the Prime Minister in pretty strong terms, imploring him to think again, saying:

“We cannot stand by and watch as your government threatens to destroy any hopes this country has of delivering a genuine London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic legacy.”

On Sunday, 60 head teachers wrote to The Observer. They were even more blunt, calling the decision

“ignorant, destructive…contradictory and self-defeating”.

Otherwise, they probably thought it was okay. The decision is entirely unjustified, either educationally, professionally or logistically, or in terms of personal health and community well-being. As my hon. Friend said, opposition has united people across the ages. Next week, young people will come to Downing street with, we are told, a petition with 1 million names on it. If that does not make the Government sit up and take notice, nothing will.

[Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what we are witnessing in the House today is either a complete failure of joined-up government or sheer hypocrisy by the Government? We have just seen the launch of the public health White Paper, which says that one of the Government’s aims is to take

“better care of our children’s health and development”,

which could “improve educational attainment,” yet now we are debating the cutting of a proven programme that does just that. Is that not sheer hypocrisy?

[Andy Burnham]

The Health Secretary was on the airwaves this morning saying that we need more sport played in schools. Well, yeah. I never agreed very much with the current Health Secretary—we had our differences—but he was right to speak up in Cabinet against the Education Secretary. He had the courage to say that. As always, we see this Secretary of State failing to carry people with his decisions. He rushes out to make a decision, but does not carry his Cabinet colleagues with him. The mismatch between what the Government are saying in the public health White Paper and what we are debating now demonstrates that.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Is it not clear that Ministers have no idea about sport? Looking at them across the Chamber, I think it is clear that none of them has played sport. I cannot see, for example, the Secretary of State joining the boxing club.

[Andy Burnham]

I shall turn to that issue in a moment.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend recognise the statistics that the Government have quoted when making their case for this cut? According to a departmental website, they have focused on inter-school competition in rugby, football and hockey. They do not even include tennis, despite the fact that the Prime Minister was the captain of the tennis team at his university. So they are using a very focused set of statistics to make their point, even though it bears little relation to reality.

[Andy Burnham]

I would go a little further than my hon. Friend. As I shall explain, I believe that the Government are abusing the statistics, and I say that having thought carefully about it. In my view, the Secretary Of State is abusing the statistics, and I will come back to that claim later.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I represent a former coal mining constituency as well, and I have spent time with partnership development co-ordinators. Is not the heart of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument that he does not fundamentally trust head teachers to take forward school sports?

[Andy Burnham]

May I politely refer the hon. Gentleman to the letter that head teachers sent to The Observer at the weekend? I know that the Secretary of State has been inundated with letters from head teachers who say that the whole infrastructure saves them money and time, because they do not have to organise expert coaching and competition themselves. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that head teachers strongly support the present system.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

rose—

[Andy Burnham]

I want to make some progress.

I have mentioned the names of those who are lining up against the Government. They are not people who want to score points; they are fighting for something in which they passionately believe. Until now, the Government have dug in and patronised people with bogus statistics, but this is now turning into a real test for them. Are they prepared to listen and to change course?

Today, I am setting four clear objectives for the debate. The first is to probe the background to this decision. The second is to test the figures that the Government have used and to find out whether they stand by them. The third is to obtain clarity on what has happened to school sport funding. Fourthly, and most importantly, I want to make the Secretary of State a genuine offer that will help us to re-establish the consensus on school sports as we head towards a home Olympics.

Let me start with the decision-making process. We admire the erudition that the Secretary of State brings to our proceedings. Mr Lansley never quoted Dryden to me, and I really admired that about the Secretary of State for Education, but let me extend his cultural references today. How about Defoe? I know that he is thinking “Daniel”, but I want to know what he thinks about—

[Michael Gove]

Jermaine.

[Andy Burnham]

Thank you very much. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has been revising over the weekend. What does he think about the work that Spurs and other clubs do with schools? We never hear him talk about sport; let us hear him talk about it. And what does he think about Strauss? Is he thinking “Johann”? I think he was, actually, but I want to tempt him to talk about Andrew today, and about the excellent Chance to Shine initiative. I want to know that he knows about these things, and that he values them.

I also want to know what sport means to the right hon. Gentleman. Last week, he goaded me about my drama career at school. I have looked up his school sports career. It did not take long. One article on him mentions it:

“In 1979, he won a scholarship to Robert Gordon’s school in Aberdeen, where he spent the next seven years excelling in every subject, except sport.”

There was also a lovely quote from Mrs Gove, his mum:

“When he had finished all his school work, he would more or less revert to reading his encyclopaedia”.

[Hon. Members: “Aah!”] It is a lovely image, but it worried me. Did he ever use the encyclopaedia as a goalpost, or anything like that? Stumps? Anyway, that worried me a little. It also made me wonder—so inexplicable is his decision on this matter—whether this whole thing might be Gove’s revenge. I get the distinct impression that he harbours some unpleasant memories of his own sporting experiences at school, and that he is lashing out at the school sport system, now that he has the chance to do so. I hope that that is not the case, however.

I have an invitation for the right hon. Gentleman. Let us get our tracksuits and our trainers on—I will lend him some if he has not got any—and go to see the school sport co-ordinators in my constituency. The Children’s Minister can come, too. If the Secretary of State comes with me to meet the school sport co-ordinators in Wigan, and if he looks them in the eye and calls them a centralised bureaucracy, we shall see what is left of him afterwards.

I also want the Secretary of State to explain a mystery to me. Week after week, he addresses Members on both sides of the House with unfailing courtesy, but that courtesy seems to have deserted him in dealing with this row. Sue Campbell—Baroness Campbell of Loughborough —is a world authority on school sport. She has given a lifetime of energy and passion to the subject. Surely someone of such stature, with decades of service, should have earned at least a hearing. Will the Secretary of State explain why he refused the many requests from Lady Campbell and the Youth Sport Trust for him to discuss funding before the spending review? It really is not good enough. Why did the Secretary of State wait until the day of the spending review to send Lady Campbell a curt and dismissive letter dispensing with the services of the Youth Sport Trust? Why did a man who is so polite and courteous act in such a way?

That brings me to my second purpose today: to challenge the bogus claims that the Secretary of State and other Ministers are making. We have heard an incredible abuse of statistics as they have thrashed around trying to find an argument. Let us set the record straight on three claims. This is claim one. The Government have said that school sport partnerships are ineffective because in the

“last year the proportion of 11 to 15-year-olds playing sport went down.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 259.]

The Government’s source for that is the “Taking Part” survey, which asks people in all age groups whether they have engaged in sport in the last seven days and in the last four weeks.

It is true that on the seven-day test the percentage of 11-to-15-year-olds engaging in active sport dropped from 88.8% to—wait for it—88%. That is a statistically negligible fall in a figure that has shot up since school sport partnerships were established. What the Government do not cite, however, is the four-week figure in the same survey. The percentage of 11-to-15-year-olds engaging in sport in the last four weeks rose from 96% to 96.7%, and, according to statisticians, that is the more important figure. It is estimated that in 2002 only 25% of young people engaged in two or more hours of competitive sport each week, whereas more than 90% do so now.

Let us now consider the survey that deals only with school sport, rather than the “Taking Part” survey. In each year group represented by 11 to 15-year-olds, the percentage engaging in at least three hours of sport each week has risen. In year 7, the rise was 59% this year, compared to 53% last year. In year 8, it was 54% compared to 50% last year. In year 9, it was 49% compared to 44% last year. In year 10, it was 45% compared to 42% last year. On the Government’s first claim, it is “case dismissed”.

The second claim is that there is not enough competitive sport, and that only one in five young people are playing it regularly against other schools. That is the claim that needles me most. I bow to no one in my support for competitive sport, having played it all my life.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Jada Anderson is a young athlete in my constituency who was spotted by Jonathan Edwards and is training alongside world champion Jessica Ennis. Her mother writes:

“Where and how else would my daughter have had the opportunity to realize her sporting potential… without the massive help from our local School Sports Partnerships?”

Does that not nail the lie that there is no link between those partnerships and competitive sport?

[Andy Burnham]

It certainly does. Such stories, much more than statistics, illustrate the success of what has been achieved.

I felt a raw injustice on this issue because I saw that such opportunities were not available in the 1980s, although they are the right of all young people. When I came into politics, I wanted to do something about it. As an adviser to the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Chris Smith, I encouraged him to set up a lottery programme under the New Opportunities Fund called “active sports co-ordinators”. It was the start of the school sports programme. A BBC report in 1999 said:

“The first wave of sports co-ordinators to boost competitive sports in schools will be in place within the next year”.

It is a total myth to say that they have not boosted competitive sport. They have succeeded in that regard.

The coalition says that only one in five pupils play inter-school competitive sport regularly—that is, nine times a year. I have two comments to make. First, that represents a big increase on the proportion many years ago. In itself, it is an impressive figure. However, it is only part of the story. Last year, 49% of children took part in inter-school competition, playing on at least one occasion. There was also a large increase in the number of pupils taking part in intra-school competition: it rose from 69% in the preceding year to 78%.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree with Rachel Redmond, partnership development manager of the North Trafford school sport partnership, that such partnerships have not only increased the level of activity in competitive sport, but improved quality through access to high-quality coaching and facilities?

[Andy Burnham]

I could not agree more, and that is the basis of a good sports policy—not competition on its own, but coaching and competition together.

In my quest to educate the Education Secretary about sport, I want him to take two simple messages away from today’s debate. First, not everyone can play for the first team or even the second team, as he may remember from his own school days. Secondly, a proper sports policy cannot be based on competition alone; it must be supported by coaching. A policy based on competition alone is a policy for the few, not the many.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the work done by my right hon. Friend, particularly in respect of swimming. For many, swimming is not a competitive sport, but it is also the only sport in Britain with equal participation by girls and boys. Is not one of the dangerous aspects of the Government’s announcement today that it is being accompanied by enormous cuts in local authority funding? That is likely to lead to a reduction in the number of swimming pools in this country.

[Andy Burnham]

That is a huge worry, and I would add to that the axing of the free swimming programme. That began in Wales, which is where we got the inspiration from: young people under the age of 16 able to swim for free. That has been axed by the coalition.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend has referred to the figure that I think the Prime Minister gave at Prime Minister’s questions last week of two in five pupils playing competitive sports regularly in school. I put that to the co-ordinators of the school sport partnership in my area, and they said: “The statistics around competition which Gove and Cameron are continually referring to are misleading. To be regarded as a regular competitor in primary schools pupils would have to have been involved in nine separate competitions, and at secondary school 12, so those pupils playing one to eight times don’t fall into that category.”

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and may I refer him to Barrie Houlihan, professor of sport at Loughborough university and the lead evaluator of the school sport partnerships programme? He wrote about the Prime Minister’s remarks from the Dispatch Box last week, and they are amazing comments to make about what was said by a Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time. Professor Houlihan said that there was

“a selective use of statistics”—

a selective use of statistics from the Dispatch Box by the Prime Minister!

Moving on to the third claim, the Prime Minister said that SSPs had failed because there was a decline in rugby union, netball, hockey and gymnastics. Again, that shows that the Government have no idea what they are talking about. The decline in those sports was minimal, and the reason for it was that schools are now providing, on average, 19 different sports, compared with 14 in 2006. There seems to be no appreciation of that huge change.

On the three central claims the Government have made therefore, the figures speak for themselves. Their claims are summarily dismissed as nonsense.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the increase in the take-up of club sport by young people and the link between that and the investment in SSPs? The figures show that there been an increase not only in school sport participation, but in club sport, which gives the lie to what the Government are saying about the impact of SSPs.

[Andy Burnham]

Anyone who has dealt with sports policy knows that this has been the key issue we have been working to crack. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) for working so hard on it, by not only getting kids to play sport in schools but then encouraging them into the clubs at weekends and in the evenings. The figures show that links between schools and local clubs have increased significantly. It is very important to raise that point, and, again, it seems to be lost on the Government.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to laud club sport; it is very important and it largely happens outwith school. Will he therefore acknowledge the changes to lottery rules under this Government that mean that 20% of lottery receipts will now go to sport, unlike under his Government where that withered?

[Andy Burnham]

I reject that out of hand, because what happened was—[Interruption.] If Members will listen for a moment, what happened was, when we came into government in 1997 we established something called the New Opportunities Fund—I have already referred to it. It allowed for the spending of lottery money in statutory premises—in hospitals and schools. That is what the public wanted. That fund, which was additional to the sports lottery fund, paid for the first generation of active sports co-ordinators. So that shows, again, that this Government are making statements and claims about which they have no knowledge whatsoever.

The Culture Secretary stood at that Dispatch Box yesterday and told my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) that

“in year 7, four in five children are not playing sport at all.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 520.]

That is simply wrong; it is an outrageous abuse of statistics. Will the Education Secretary apologise for these erroneous claims that Ministers continue to make? Will he set the record straight? Has any civil servant warned him or his Ministers, or Ministers in other Departments, about the way in which they are presenting these figures? I do not expect a straight answer from him on that question, but I can tell him that I will be writing to the UK Statistics Authority asking it to comment on the public presentation of statistics in this area by Ministers because I believe it to be woeful.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

If the shadow Secretary of State is seeking consensus, as I am sure he is, will he reflect on whether the tone of his speech today is helpful? On Friday, in advance of his speech, I met the school sport partnership co-ordinator for the Colchester academy and I was very impressed. I want this approach to continue, and I want there to be an accommodation and consensus. The shadow Secretary of State is not helping the argument. Let us have a grown-up debate, let us be sensible and let us stop the cat-calls.

[Andy Burnham]

If the hon. Gentleman spoke to those school sports co-ordinators, he will have found that they are pretty hurt and pretty angry. He just nodded at that, so is it not right that I reflect some of that feeling in this House this afternoon? Is it not right that I give a voice to those 3,200 people, who cannot stand here, and put across the passion that they feel about the young people with whom they are working. [Interruption.] I am coming to a positive proposal. I feel passionately about this, but I also want a way forward and it is all about whether people are prepared to listen. We cannot get everything that we want, but I am prepared to negotiate and to compromise—I hope that the same applies to those on both sides of the House.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

rose—

[Andy Burnham]

I will give way one last time, then I will finish my remarks.

[Andrew Percy]

I certainly think that school sport partnerships have done some excellent work in my area. I have spoken to school sports co-ordinators and to head teachers and it is fair to say that head teachers and deputy head teachers have a range of views on the effectiveness of the partnerships and how valuable they have been in their area. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if they have been doing work in the way that he has outlined, it will still be possible for those head teachers and those schools to work in partnerships to produce just the same things that have happened before?

[Andy Burnham]

I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said and his comment that the partnerships have done excellent work stands in stark contrast to the position of his Front-Bench team. He is just giving head teachers a prescription for more work and more bureaucracy; they will have to rush around on their own trying to find the coaches. The current system works, so why is the Education Secretary dismantling it?

The Government and the right hon. Gentleman have talked themselves into a mess—not for the first time. The spin just does not end. He says that school sport partnerships will be replaced by an Olympic-style school sport competition, but there are two problems with that statement. First, such a competition is no substitute for year-round sport in all schools for all children, and secondly, such a competition already exists; it is called the UK school games and it has been in place since 2006.

We are getting to the heart of the matter now: the right hon. Gentleman’s mishandling of his budget. There is now real confusion about whether this money for school sport has been cut or de-ring-fenced, as Ministers have been saying. He says that we should give money to schools and let them decide, but yesterday his schools Minister, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), said of the Youth Sport Trust grant:

“The money saved will not be fed through the Dedicated Schools Grant”—[Official Report, 29 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 532W.]

So which is it? Will head teachers be able to find this money or not? Will it be in their budgets? Is it not the case that schools will be asked to pay for sport themselves, as well as for many other things that they currently get for free? Is this not a false economy, as those services can often be provided more cheaply through the economies of scale that come from providing a service across a whole area with the expert support of a national body such as the Youth Sport Trust?

All this will not take us out of the impasse, which brings me to my final point, which is a genuine suggestion about how to take things forward. As in any sporting dispute, we need an independent referee. I suggest that in this case we bring in thousands of them. Surely the best way to resolve this argument is to ask the head teachers of this country about the effectiveness of school sport partnerships. A simple question could be put to them in a survey: would they prefer a funding package to be found to maintain the SSP infrastructure or would they prefer to have each to their own and the freedom to decide? I can tell the Secretary of State today that I have received an offer from a reputable firm to do a survey for free, which I shall share with him. I urge him to take that offer forward, as long as he consults the Opposition on the questions that would be asked. I believe that he would find it helpful as it might shed new light on the misplaced suspicion that lies at the heart of his policy pronouncements. He seems to distrust any system of collective or central support for schools. He nods at that, and I am disappointed about that because there is an ideological problem here.

The drift of the right hon. Gentleman’s policy is towards a more atomised school system, where schools become walled gardens and do their own thing, competing fiercely, and where collaboration is frowned upon. That vision conflicts with the idea of providing excellence and specialist provision to all children, as it becomes more costly and complicated when schools go it alone. Sport needs central organisation, particularly competitive league and cup competitions, and there are also only so many qualified coaches. To give children access to the best, it is easier to work together across a defined area and to share resources. Far from being bureaucratic, it reduces the bureaucracy on schools. If they were left to do it all themselves, more time would be spent on it and the quality would not be as good.

Today, I can tell the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) that I have given the Secretary of State a solution that fits the White Paper that the Secretary of State published last week. Let the heads decide—it is a simple proposal.

In conclusion, we have built up a school sports system in this country that works. Thousands of people have built it up with blood, sweat and tears. They have worked hard at it because they believe passionately in what they do. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) laughs at that and in doing so he denigrates their commitment. I do not often implore anyone to do anything, but I am imploring the Secretary of State today to keep the basic school sport partnership structure in place. When I think of all the positive energy that will dissipate if they are broken down, it makes me want to weep.

My own life has told me that good school sport must be a right for every single child in this country. It raises academic standards, builds strong schools with a sense of identity and togetherness and builds well-rounded children. For some young people—perhaps the less academically minded in the class—the day they go to school with their boots in their bag is the day they have a spring in their step and a bit of hope in their heart. Let us not take that away from them. I commend the motion to the House.

17:27

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for making his case with characteristic passion, reflecting the years of experience that he has devoted to ensuring that sport plays a proper part in the life of the nation as both Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and a special adviser before that. No one could doubt his passion or commitment. Indeed, they animated every word that he spoke. I recognise that in calling for this Opposition day debate he is doing more than just making a political point. He speaks from the heart, and I appreciate the fervour with which he makes his case. I know—I share the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell)—that when, occasionally, that passion takes a rawer edge, it comes from an individual who cares deeply about the sporting infrastructure in this country. For that reason, I make no criticism of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman made his case.

I also think that it is appropriate to acknowledge that across the House there are individuals who are committed to ensuring that we support the place of sport not just in our schools but in the life of our nation. Distinguished former sports Ministers on the Opposition Benches and individuals on the Government Benches, although they might disagree about the delivery mechanism, share something of the passion exhibited by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech.

In responding to the right hon. Gentleman’s strong case, I want to try to lower the temperature and to analyse the situation that we have inherited. Of course, we must consider the facts and the statistics against the backdrop of the difficult economic position that the Government inherited. [Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members would like to put that part of the debate to one side, but for those of us in government it is impossible to consider the decisions that have to be taken in schools across the country without being aware of the dire financial position that the Government inherited.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I shall come to some of those interventions in a second.

Every option that is proposed by the Opposition, whatever the passion or fervour behind it, has to have a price tag. In the middle of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the current delivery mechanism might not be as efficient as it could be and that there might be room for reduction. He said specifically that he would accept a cut or a proportionate reduction that would retain the infrastructure, so he acknowledges that it is perfectly possible to reduce spending and retain the infrastructure, but when I asked him how much of a cut and what would retain the infrastructure he was curiously silent. I would be very interested to hear from any of the Opposition Members who care so much about this—I do not doubt their passion—what level of cut they would contemplate and what they would consider to be a robust infrastructure to be kept in place. We have not had an answer on that.

[Andy Burnham]

If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared seriously to discuss retaining school sport partnerships, I will sit down with him and discuss at what level they could be kept in place and funded. The Opposition would support him if he put forward a figure that would keep them in place. If that is the offer he is making, I will sit down with him tonight to discuss it.

[Michael Gove]

I am always very grateful to sit down with the right hon. Gentleman, but he called this debate now. It is a debate of his timing, not mine, and he said in his opening remarks that he would be prepared to accept a cut. Now he has had an opportunity to state what that would be, but we do not know; there is silence on this issue.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

As the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer the question, perhaps one of his hon. Friends might.

[Clive Efford]

The Secretary of State has referred to the £162 million figure both in his letter to Sue Campbell about the cut in school sport partnerships and on the departmental website. What proportion of that money is to be transferred? He says that the policy has been brought about as a result of the economic situation, so exactly how much of that £162 million is he cutting?

[Michael Gove]

At the moment, we are looking to see exactly how much we can devote to sport, music, science, languages and all those specific areas of curriculum support that are outside the school budget. We have increased overall school funding by £3.6 billion.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the adverse effect that his policy will have on a number of schools? I have received a letter from the head of a sports college in my constituency in which fine academic and sporting work is done. The head is very concerned about what the impact will be—starting next year. What is the Secretary of State going to do to reassure people like her? She is dedicated to teaching and is rightly worried about how her school will be affected.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point very well. I am sensitive to the fact that teachers and head teachers across the country are entering difficult times in respect not just of sport funding but of overall funding. The economic situation was not of the making of Government Members, but we are doing everything we can to help schools through this difficult time. One thing we are doing is removing ring-fencing. If he was referring to a specialist sports college, that will mean money that was hitherto ring-fenced as part of its specialist status now going directly to that head teacher, who I am sure is doing an excellent job. If she has, as I am sure she has, his confidence and mine, that money will be spent in a wise fashion.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I am keen to make progress, but I shall be happy to give way to a number of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House in due course. [Interruption.] I am even happier to give way to hon. Ladies and right hon. Ladies on both sides of the House.

We know that £2.4 billion was spent by the last Government on delivering their sport strategy. Our contention is that although much good work was done, that money was not spent as effectively and efficiently as it should have been. In the letter I wrote to Baroness Campbell, which the right hon. Member for Leigh referred to as “curt”, even though it was four and a half pages of prose, I outlined my gratitude to her for the work she had done. Earlier, the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) suggested from a sedentary position that I should have met Baroness Campbell. I had the opportunity of meeting her—indeed, of having dinner with her—before I became Secretary of State. I also had the opportunity of talking to John Beckwith, one of the supporters of the Youth Sport Trust, and with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), I had the opportunity of assessing the work of the trust. My hon. Friend had the opportunity of meeting Baroness Campbell on three occasions before we made our decision in the comprehensive spending review.

One of the questions that was in my mind was whether we were ensuring that enough was spent on the front line under the current structure. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would support the investment required to retain the infrastructure, but he did not specify what it was. Let me share with the House some of the details of the infrastructure. At present, we have 450 partnership development managers and 225 competition managers. On top of that, there are senior competition managers and on top of that, 11 regional development managers, and on top of that three national development managers. They work alongside the county sport partnerships and the national governing bodies of each sport. How many of those posts are essential to the delivery of an effective school sport offer?

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State recognise that the people he has just mentioned save schools time and money? What would he say to Kealey Sherwood, the director of sport at St Luke’s school in my constituency, about the £300,000 cut to my local partnership? She said:

“We are devastated. There is a real danger that at an exciting time for sport in Britain, all will be destroyed.”

What does the Secretary of State say to her?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to Kealey Sherwood for the commitment she shows. I am also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the work he did when he was Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, but I have a question, which most people would consider fair-minded. If Opposition Members would like to maintain the infrastructure entirely intact, how much are they prepared to take from other budgets to do that, or if they agree with the right hon. Member for Leigh that a cut is possible to maintain the infrastructure, what level of cut would it be? Which of the posts is dispensable?

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is a former sports Minister.

[Mr Sutcliffe]

The Secretary of State talked about the national governing bodies. The infrastructure is the school sport partnerships working with the national governing bodies to deliver their whole sport plans. If he is serious about finding a way through, has he had any discussion with his hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) about why that infrastructure is so important? Has he had any discussions with his hon. Friend about the way forward?

[Michael Gove]

I am fortunate enough to have had a number of discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Bath, and one of the points that he has made to me is that although many people working in the network and the infrastructure are doing a fantastic job, which I happily acknowledge—I am glad to have the opportunity this debate affords me to stress that—it is also the case that the quality of delivery can be variable. It is important that we audit how the infrastructure is performing, and that we ensure that money is spent proportionately.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I shall give way to the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), but then I want to make some progress.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State not in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? In my school sport partnership in North Stoke, we have transformed participation in sport. He asked how much our shadow Secretary of State wished to cut the budget by, but it is not a question of how much—it is a question of keeping the infrastructure. Can we for once use Parliament as a means of finding a solution to how we get sport in schools and in our communities? Will the Secretary of State continue his contribution in that spirit?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the fair point she makes. I chose to begin my remarks by making it clear that I wished to operate constructively. I should like to ask some questions to ensure that we have a proper informed debate about the successes, and about the areas where the current strategy may not have been delivering the value for money we wanted.

[Angela Smith]

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the comments of a teacher from Silkstone primary school in my constituency who said that staff at his school had benefited from the excellent training courses presented by their SSP? He continued:

“Staff development has allowed colleagues to learn many new skills…This has been central to our ability to develop the whole child and focus on enjoyment and excellence.”

Will the Secretary of State reconsider the comments that he has just made and admit that the partnerships work very well in schools, not just on sport, but on many facets?

[Michael Gove]

I have enormous respect for the hon. Lady and the way that she makes her point. As I stressed earlier, and as her intervention gives me the opportunity to underline, there are many parts of the country where those who are working in school sports partnerships are doing a great job, but my task as Secretary of State is to analyse the current infrastructure and ensure that we are getting the maximum value for money, where good practice exists to support it, and where practice is less than optimal to try to find a way through to ensure that we have better value for money.

[Andy Burnham]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. We are still waiting for the answer to the question what is a proportionate reduction.

[Andy Burnham]

The right hon. Gentleman is giving a lot of encouraging signs that he is prepared to look at the system and make it more efficient. I am not arguing that it is perfect. Of course it could probably be made more efficient, but can we make some genuine progress? Will he sit down with me and discuss how we can keep in place enough people on the ground to provide a decent enough sporting offer to children? I will accept the reduction in the funding if he will agree to sit down and talk about the current structure, rather than creating a whole new and different structure that will not deliver for children.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that offer and I am always happy to work in a consensual way, but I should like to lay out some facts which will, I hope, allow the House to have an informed debate. I will take the opportunity, of course, to talk to him, formally or informally, at any point on any aspect of policy, but it is important that we appreciate that he has acknowledged that a proportionate reduction is appropriate. He has not yet come forward with what that proportionate reduction would be. Let us go on to examine the scope for reduction.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I should like to make a little progress. I know that the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) and the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) are keen to intervene, but a number of my colleagues on the Government Benches have not had a chance yet, so it would be only fair and sporting if I were to give them a chance as well.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key issue is not whether we have one organisation or another, but to raise the number of hours a week of sport played by children in their schools? Will he consider encouraging that more through the national curriculum?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. For me, the most important thing is outputs, not inputs.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

There seems to be a consensus that the quality across the country is variable. My right hon. Friend made the point that an audit was needed to look at what works and what does not work so well. The previous Government spent £2.4 billion on that. Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether he inherited any audit of how that money has worked?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is important that we look at the existing infrastructure and what it has delivered. Many of the people who are doing the job of partnership development manager are utterly committed to improving the sporting offer for young people, but I worry that the structure within which they work does not allow them to do what is best.

Much of the job description of a partnership development manager depends on full-time strategic management, developing an ongoing self-review document, advocating the priorities of the partnership within wider strategic frameworks, establishing robust data-tracking and monitoring systems, and promoting the benefits and successes of the partnership. There is inadequate space in the job description for doing what the right hon. Member for Leigh did so well—making the case for improved participation in sport with fervour and passion. [Interruption.] He says, “Let’s change it.” I agree. We are changing it. He had the opportunity when he was in power; he did not do so. Now he is happy to do so. I am happy to see this movement. The Opposition are happy to acknowledge that we can reduce the amount that is being spent, and happy to acknowledge that there has been too much bureaucracy for partnership development managers. I am delighted to acknowledge that.

The same applies to the role of competition managers. It is vital that we encourage more school competition, but one of the problems is that there is another layer of bureaucracy. What is the role of a competition manager? It is a full-time position responsible for modernising the competition landscape. One has to work strategically with the partnership development manager, manage and co-ordinate the monitoring and evaluation of projects and fulfil local and national data collection requirements. Again, all those take away from the central task of promoting sport with fervour and passion.

The data requirements—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I am sharing some facts with the House.

The data requirements for school sport partnerships are exemplified in the school sport partnership self-review tool. We all know how onerous tick-box exercises can be, and that exercise has 115 boxes to tick. Every moment spent looking at the self-review tool is a moment that could be spent coaching, inspiring and acting to ensure that more children take part in sport, but unfortunately there is too much bureaucracy.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Gove]

In a second.

In the same way, we acknowledge that the Youth Sport Trust—Baroness Campbell, Steve Grainger and their team—has done a lot of good work, but one question I ask about their organisation is: did the way in which the previous Government managed it necessarily make the most of its talents? With the Youth Sport Trust, we have to ask: was it encouraged sufficiently to find outside sources of funding? Only 15% or so of its funding came from private or independent sources; 85% of it came from the state, and that cannot be an entirely healthy position for any charity. Indeed, large sums were committed to administration; £340,000 was spent on communications, and £400,000 was given to one private sector company to manage the school sport partnerships outside the trust. Was that the best use of money?

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

rose—

[Simon Danczuk]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I am very happy to make way for the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford). I do not know whether any of those are aspects of bureaucracy that he would be willing to defend.

[Mr Raynsford]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, because I will tell him of 70 simple facts that illustrate the effectiveness of the scheme—and of the competition manager in my constituency who wrote to me about this matter. The 70 are the 70 primary schools in Greenwich, every single one of which takes part in an annual sportathon that gives thousands of children an opportunity to participate on a site that will become an Olympic site in 2012. What is wrong with that? Will the right hon. Gentleman now recognise that he has made a terrible mistake and must now negotiate with the Opposition to reach a solution?

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Gentleman once again reflects with passion the interests of his constituency, and as ever he brings to our debate an understanding of its landscape, but the thing I have to say—[Interruption.] There is a sedentary intervention from the Opposition Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton). If she wants to make a point, I shall be delighted to hear one, but in the meantime I shall reply to the right hon. Gentleman.

Nothing in our proposals means that any primary school would lose out on an opportunity to take part in competitive sport. Everything that we are about relates to ensuring that the money that we spend in schools and on school sport is spent more effectively.

[Clive Efford]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Gove]

I have been generous in giving way, and I should like to give way to some of the gentlemen and ladies on my own side who are anxious to make a point.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I should like to give way to my hon. Friend first.

[Paul Maynard]

We have heard a lot from the Opposition about infrastructure, and my right hon. Friend has told us a lot about bureaucracy, which I think is what they mean by infrastructure. Will he give me his view on the extra bureaucracy required for disabled children to access sport? Under the current structure, their schools face much greater hurdles than many others.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As we know, he is utterly committed to ensuring appropriate provision for children who are living with disabilities, and I want to ensure that we get the spirit of both the Olympic and the Paralympic games into our schools. A lot of good work is going on, and I want to ensure that the money that we spend in future is targeted, in particular, at schools which often have a large number of children who are living with disabilities.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Gove]

I am just answering my hon. Friend’s point.

I want to ensure that those schools get the support that they need.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I am very happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael).

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that my children are much the same as others, in that they do not cry out for more infrastructure and bureaucracy when they talk about sport? What they really benefit from is local people giving them leadership and encouragement, which they get—but not through infrastructure and bureaucracy.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

[Lyn Brown]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

It is important that we ensure that the very many Back Benchers who have not yet intervened but want to contribute have a chance to do so, and I should like to make some progress. With respect to the hon. Lady, there may be room for some interventions later.

I have talked about the nature of the bureaucracy. It is also important to talk about the nature of what has been delivered. It is important to recognise that, yes, there have been improvements, but they must be put into this context: £2.4 billion spent, and what have we seen for it? The right hon. Member for Leigh chided me in saying that in his view there had been an abuse of statistics. Well, the motion refers, I think, to 22% of children taking part in sports in 2002 and 90% doing so now. I have to point out to him that that is an abuse of statistics. The 22% figure was an estimate by Ofsted; 90% is a figure from a genuine survey. The first survey of involvement in school sports, in 2003-04, showed that more than 60% were already taking part. Yes, that is an improvement—I am happy to acknowledge it—but what we have seen is a manipulation of statistics for political purposes. I am happy to forgive the right hon. Gentleman, but let us be clear that he was not comparing like with like.

[Bob Russell]

I am disappointed that the Secretary of State is now going down the route that I was trying to avoid. On Friday afternoon, I met Zoe Ford of Colchester academy, who is in charge of co-ordinating seven primary schools, and she told me that this project has been a great success. Forget the figures—will he come to Colchester and meet this young lady, who can prove to him how successful this has been?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. I am always disappointed when I go down a path that he does not approve of, and I appreciate the importance of my visiting Colchester, as have previous Secretaries of State. I again take the opportunity to underline that in some areas of the country many of those involved in the delivery of school sports are doing a fantastic job. Given everything that he says, I suspect that Colchester is one of them.

It is important to recognise that, as the right hon. Member for Leigh acknowledged, the picture is not perfect—far from it. Looking at the figures on the sports where participation has fallen and the number of schools offering particular sports, it is an unarguable fact that after the commitment of £2.4 billion, the numbers of people taking part in gymnastics, rounders and netball have fallen, and the number of schools offering hockey and rugby union has fallen. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), I have to say that the number of schools offering swimming has not changed—it was 84% in 2003-04, before £2.4 billion was spent, and it is 84% now. There has been no increase in participation in a significant number of sports.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I will not give way at this stage.

As well as a fall in the number of schools offering these sports, the numbers taking part in competition have also been lower than we would expect. Just two in five people take part in competitive sport within a school—intra-school competition—and just one in five in competitive sport between schools.

[Clive Efford]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

No—not at this stage. I was very generous in giving way earlier.

It is also important that we look at those figures more deeply in context. On schools where pupils regularly take part in intra-school competitions, in 1,280 secondary schools not a single pupil takes part in an intra-school competition. That equates to nearly one in three secondary schools where not a single intra-school competition takes place.

[Simon Danczuk]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

No.

I know that there are challenges that we all face, but after the commitment of £2.4 billion we have not seen an improvement. Similarly, as to the proportion of pupils who regularly take part in inter-school competitions, in 710 schools not a single pupil takes part in such competitions. That situation is not defensible.

The right hon. Gentleman said that not everyone can be in the first 11, or the first 13 or 15, and that is true. However, some schools are exemplary. In 10 schools, 100% of pupils regularly take part in inter-school competitions, and in 320 they regularly take part in intra-school competitions. There are massive variations and disparities. I mention these figures simply to point out that a responsible Government would look, as we have, at the commitment of £2.4 billion and ask this: can we ensure that we have more schools where more students have an opportunity to take part in competition?

[Phil Wilson]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I will not give way at this point.

If some schools can offer every student an opportunity to take part in intra-school and inter-school competitions, why cannot more do so?

[Lyn Brown]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

No, I shall not.

I believe that the time is right to consider a different approach. We should listen to some of the voices that are equally as committed to sport as the right hon. Gentleman. They include organisations such as Compass, which represents those who are involved in providing coaching support for schools. In a letter to me, it says that it is important that we cease

“to fund a costly central management and control system”,

and argues that

“the most sustainable model in primary schools is where coaches work alongside teaching staff...This will require no expenditure on centralised management and infrastructure.”

I have to take account of what it says.

In the same way, I listen to Greenhouse, a charity that has done a fantastic job in encouraging more children, particularly from areas of deprivation, to take part in sports. One of the trustees of Greenhouse, David Meller, says to me—[Laughter.] For the avoidance of doubt, I should stress that this is David Meller, the sponsor of Harefield academy, which I have had the opportunity to visit.

[Chris Bryant]

Not the Chelsea supporter.

[Michael Gove]

Not the gentleman who forced down the price of Chelsea strips everywhere. That was not all he forced down, but I will put that to one side.

This is a serious point. David Meller says:

“The quality and effectiveness of”

the existing approach has

“varied from borough to borough”—

exactly my point—and that the

“structure is overly bureaucratic and not sufficiently focused on delivery.”

Let me mention someone else who has a valid point to make in this debate—the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who used to be Minister for Sport. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Leigh has respect for the hon. Lady, but I certainly do. She says:

“It was always expected that, if School Sports Partnerships were a success, they would become embedded and the Youth Sport Trust would then withdraw. If schools and parents feel that their SSP has been valuable, I suspect that it—or at least many of its functions—will continue in some form. Where the contribution of the SSP has not proved valuable, new solutions will be sought. This is exactly how it should be: schools themselves taking more responsibility for school sport.”

Steve Kibble, an individual who delivers sport for a local authority in Devon, has written to me, as have several other teachers and head teachers. He points out that in his area, school sports partnerships

“have drawn down £1.4M per year”

and argues that

“if the money had gone direct to schools we would have had £4,110 per school per year to invest in PE”,

noting that instead some schools have had just £200.

Those are all powerful voices who care about sport just as much as the right hon. Gentleman, and who say that we can reform the way in which we deliver school sport.

[Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Michael Gove]

I am delighted to do so.

[Mr Gale]

It is abundantly clear that some fairly murky bathwater has to be disposed of, and it is also plain that there is a baby that has to be cared for. As my right hon. Friend knows, I represent an area of the country with some of the highest social deprivation. Thanet primary schools have benefited significantly from sports festivals. Will he indicate very clearly whether such areas and school clusters will continue to have the money to hold sports festivals and, if they wish, to employ locally a sports co-ordinator to run them?

[Michael Gove]

That is exactly our approach. Our approach is to ensure that the money is devolved—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I shall not give way. Our approach is to ensure that the money is devolved entirely to local authorities. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale), because he is not only a very effective constituency MP, but somebody who appreciates the importance of competition in school sport.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

No, I shall not give way.

It is critical that we recognise what a different approach might involve. It is important for those of us who care about delivering school sport in a better way to acknowledge that the way in which the curriculum is currently designed means that those who wish to deliver competitive sport often have to do so outside school hours. Is it worth thinking about how we can reform the curriculum to better support school sport? I think that it is.

It is also worth acknowledging that there are bureaucratic requirements for coaches who support particular school sports to be qualified at a specific level and in a specific way. Perhaps we could look at that bureaucracy and make better use of the volunteer army that is determined to encourage more children to take part in sport. There are rules governing everything from health and safety to who is qualified to drive a school minibus that restrict that volunteer army in committing to school sport. Is it appropriate that we look at all those rules and reform them? I think that it is. In all those areas, action could have been taken in the past 13 years, but it was not. I would like to see a different approach.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I shall not give way.

We must acknowledge the reality regarding school playing fields. There cannot be effective school sport without school playing fields. A number of hon. Members have made the point that Labour has an at best ambiguous record on this matter. In 1997, the Labour party manifesto stated:

“A Labour government will take the lead in extending opportunities for participation in sports; and in identifying sporting excellence and supporting it.

School sports must be the foundation. We will bring the government’s policy of forcing schools to sell off playing fields to an end.”

That was an admirable aim. However, in January 2000, it was revealed that of 103 applications to sell playing fields, 101 had been approved.

Elsa Davies, director of the National Playing Fields Association, said that the previous Government did not even pay lip service to their election pledges:

“They have said one thing and done precisely the opposite. It is a very sad U-turn. These pieces of land are disappearing forever and they are part of our children’s heritage.”

In November 2000, the sell-offs had still not been stopped. Elsa Davies pointed out that 190 applications had come forward, and that only four had been refused. In February 2002, after more than 18 months in which £125 million had been due to be handed out to 12 partner organisations to support school playing fields, the Daily Mail and the BBC revealed that they had contacted all of those groups and found out that not a single one had opened new playing fields with the money. Kate Hoey, the then Minister for Sport said:

“Trying to stop the sale of playing fields was another uphill battle. No one wanted to admit”—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The Secretary of State may not use the Member’s name. I think that he is referring to the hon. Member for Vauxhall.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am quoting from The Daily Telegraph. The hon. Member for Vauxhall said:

“Trying to stop the sale of playing fields was another uphill battle. No one wanted to admit that this was still happening… But again this didn’t fit the picture that Downing Street wanted to portray. They had begun to believe their own spin”.

She continued:

“Ministers should admit that what they are really doing is allowing sales to go ahead to subsidise the Education Department’s rising costs. The truth is that, in town after town, green spaces are being concreted over and it can be seen by everybody.”

By April 2007, Labour had presided over the loss of 2,540 school and community playing sites. I recognise that there are pressures on Governments and on schools, and that flexibility is at the heart of the effective delivery of Government policy. However, it is appropriate for the Opposition to acknowledge that when we look back at the record of the past 13 years, although there are successes to be applauded, there are also lessons to be learned.

I recognise that many right hon. and hon. Members want to contribute to the debate and I hope that it will follow the pattern that I hope I have set. I hope that it will be respectful of the facts.

[Clive Efford]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I am afraid that I cannot give way.

I hope that the debate will be respectful of the facts. I hope that it will acknowledge that there are hon. Members in all parts of the House who are committed to the better delivery of school sport. I hope that it will take into account the points graciously made by the right hon. Member for Leigh, and recognise that there is scope for a reduction in funding and for the more efficient use of the infrastructure that we have inherited. If we proceed in that way, I am sure that we can all work together to ensure that school sports continue to be delivered to an ever-higher standard and that we will all be able to take pride in the achievements of our young people.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before I call anybody, I remind hon. Members that there is a six-minute limit. There are 27 speakers, so short speeches would be helpful—brevity is the order of the day. If hon. Members try not to take as many interventions as usual, we will get as many speakers in as possible.

18:05

[Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

I will try to be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker, charitable to the Government and constructive.

I do not believe that the Government are setting out to butcher school sports, but I fear that, whether by design or through how things pan out, they will make the same terrible mistakes that were made in the 1980s. At that time, a combination of political correctness and political ideology undermined competitive school sports and derided teachers and parents who gave up their time voluntarily to run school sports clubs. Large numbers of school playing fields were sold off to pay for the budgetary constraints imposed by Mrs Thatcher’s Government on local government. As a result, many schools no longer have their own playing fields. Sadly, many sports, in particular cricket and rugby, are available only in private schools nowadays.

In my constituency of Hall Green, the site of the former Moor Green football club is the subject of a planning application by a developer for housing. Next to that site is Hall Green primary school, which is desperate for playing field facilities, as are the other cluster schools. If the matter ends up with the Government on appeal, I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind what he has said in this debate about losing sporting facilities.

As well as being a Member of Parliament, I have had the privilege over the past six years of being chairman of a large charitable trust that is associated with a professional football club. The trust uses the power of football to engage with some of the most disadvantaged people in the south-east of England, who would not respond to anybody else, and certainly not to Ministers, politicians or local government officers. The trust has a turnover of £2.8 million and it employs 30 full-time staff and 130 coaches. It has engaged with many school partnerships to provide coaching and facilities that are desperately needed. It has had huge success.

The Government’s policy will potentially provide more business for such trusts. With all due respect to the Secretary of State, our experience is that working with schools and school partnerships can bring huge benefits. We can take on such commitments, but I am not sure that they will be achievable in the way that he thinks, and certainly not if he cuts £162 million and puts back only £10 million. What is happening to the other £152 million? Will it go to schools so that they can contract out or will it go into the general budget? If it goes into the general budget, sport will lose.

The Secretary of State asked the Opposition spokesman to give him an alternative. My right hon. Friend came up with one, but as we are in that sphere, I will offer an alternative to the Secretary of State. In this country, the most profitable sport, and the one that dominates income generation, is premier league football. More than £3.5 billion of contracts are currently operated by the premier league for the benefit of 20 clubs. Yes, some trickle-down economics apply, but basically 20 clubs, their owners, their players and the agents are the ones that benefit.

I shall make a suggestion to the Secretary of State. In 1997, when the Labour Government came in, they imposed a levy on the privatised utilities to pay for a specific employment programme. If the Government were to impose just a small levy, let us say 5%, on the £3.5 billion coming into premiership football, that would completely pay for the cuts that he is proposing. I suggest that he may like to go and have a word with the chief executive of the premier league and put such a suggestion to him. If he did, the Government would be hugely popular—they could do with some popularity at the moment—among sports fans throughout the country.

If the Secretary of State made such a suggestion, he could only get one of two answers, yes or no. Or he might be told where to go, but he would have shown clearly the view of a Government who say that we are all in it together. One particular segment of sport is getting a vast amount of money that many people now find absolutely obscene, so I say to him: be radical, be brave. Why does he not impose a very small levy on premiership money to pay for all the cuts that he is announcing today?

18:11

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, which opened with a funny and high-quality speech from the shadow Secretary of State, which reflected his passion for, and expertise in, sport. I am sure that will soon be conveyed into the area of education. The Secretary of State’s response was also of high quality. Last week he produced an extremely promising White Paper that rightly focused on teacher quality. He has also successfully protected schools’ funding and introduced a pupil premium to help the poorest.

The Opposition do not like hearing it, but we all know how terrible, and indeed terrifying, is the scale of the overspending that the last Government left. Apart from the wilfully blind, all of us recognise the necessity of bringing it down before it does the same to us. It is therefore understandable that the Government should seek to make every possible saving, and that the £162 million budget for the physical education and sport strategy is put under scrutiny.

The Government are determined to stop micro-managing how schools and others spend their money, and to end most ring-fencing of budgets. Their proposals on school sport partnerships are consistent with that approach. Exaggerated claims that ending them will destroy all competitive sport in maintained schools are foolish and wrong. It is true that school sport partnerships have not been the cure-all for our children’s obesity and exercise challenges, and that as we heard, there have been a mixture of outcomes and variations. Nevertheless, I welcome the tone of the Secretary of State’s speech, which set out the fact that the Government are prepared to listen to the representations that have been made up and down the country.

Whatever the variations, sport partnerships have had a role to play in improving and increasing participation in sport. It is incumbent on the Government, even in these parlous times, to listen to the representations that are made and consider ideas of how to ensure that we do not needlessly lose what we have of value. There may be a period of transition, and as the Secretary of State rightly said, we will need to provide time to allow alternative funding to be brought forward, but there is huge popular sentiment behind sport for our young people and children.

As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) said, there is a vast amount of wealth in football, but also in other professional sports. We must take at face value the enthusiasm of the many sports people who are speaking up on behalf of sport partnerships, and see how we can work with them and others. I am not sure I agree completely with a levy on the premier league, but it is an idea to put in the pot.

We need to consider ways of maintaining what is most valuable. From what the Secretary of State said today, I picked up on the fact that the Government are open to listening to representations on that. He said that there was scope for more efficient use of the existing infrastructure, which implies to me, in however nuanced a way, that the Government are coming to recognise that that infrastructure may have value and is not just needless bureaucracy. I hope that we will see further action on that.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that head teachers and staff have the capability and organisational skills to retain competitive sport in schools, just like at my school, Dingwall academy, a state community comprehensive, in the 1980s? The teachers worked tirelessly to ensure that there was competitive sport, with all sports included.

[Mr Stuart]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and like the Secretary of State, I believe in trusting front-line professionals. May I take her with me on a virtual journey to my constituency, and to some of the small rural primary schools there? Without some form of infrastructure such as the sport partnerships, it would not have had specialist coaches coming in to work alongside the teachers in the school. That co-ordination and involvement can play an important part. Rural areas and the primary sector in particular can benefit from some form of central infrastructure.

The Government showed that they listen during the passage of the Academies Act 2010, when representations were made in both Houses about special educational needs, with Members saying that not all the responsibility should be passed down to schools after careful consideration of the impact that it would have. The Government came forward with changed proposals to ensure that certain aspects of SEN provision would rest with local authorities. Having heard the Secretary of State’s words today, I am hopeful that he is in listening mode again, while also rightly seeking to ensure that we do not have needless bureaucracy.

The engagement among the Front Benchers in recognising that there is room for improvement and for common ground should give hope to all those who want to ensure that we move forward from a position that was improved in recent years under the last Government, but which can and should be so much better than it is. If we can move forward on that basis, I believe that we can do the right thing by our young people in schools up and down the country.

18:17

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

How ironic that a debate on cuts to school sport should follow the Health Secretary’s statement on public health. He recognises the problem of childhood obesity and health inequality, but it is unfortunate that on this issue, the Government’s left hand does not appear to know what the right hand is doing. This change is not a nudge, it is pitching school sports back into the rough of the 1980s.

In the words of one Darlington schoolteacher,

“hard pushed teachers do not have the time to replace or enhance the work of the Partnerships in organising competitions.”

He continued:

“I am dismayed at the state of democracy in this country if one self confessed hater of school sport”—

I think he means the Secretary of State—

“can scrap a decade’s successful work. Surely this man must listen to the outcry across the nation that this whimsical decision has caused.”

My concern is that without the innovation and expertise offered by school sport partnerships, the most able, motivated and enthusiastic young people will, quite rightly, be given the opportunity to play hockey, netball, athletics and basketball for their house and their school, but the rest will be left with the excuse of concluding that sport just is not for them.

School sport partnerships and specialist sports schools, such as Longfield school in my constituency, have succeeded in combining a growing excellence in competitive sport with activities designed to encourage those less inclined to don a bib and take to the hockey pitch. Selling the same old nostalgic product, as the Tories tried in the ’80s, simply does not work, and I speak as someone who played rugby union for my university. School sport partnerships understand the specific needs of different groups, particularly girls, and develop new activities and experiences that compete successfully with how girls previously chose to spend their time. They have been exceptionally good at listening to what girls want, and flexible in responding to what they have heard. Imaginative initiatives, such as a prom club to help girls feel fit and healthy before their prom night, grab the attention of girls who are so often left out of competitive sport.

However, school sport partnerships have also championed competitive sport. They have offered leadership courses, helping people to gain experience, qualifications and confidence in sport that they can share with their younger peers. Older girls have often inspired younger ones to give sport a go, and SSPs have often worked with primaries to produce a better quality offer. That is a good example of making public money go further.

Why are the Government not listening to young people? The campaign to save that value-for-money approach to school sport is growing daily. Those working in school sports, almost to a man and a woman, believe that that cut has not been properly thought through.

[Phil Wilson]

As I said earlier, I have received dozens of letters from children in my constituency who are concerned about those cuts. This is from Bradley Johnson, aged 10:

“Dear Mr Wilson…I am writing to ask Mr Gove to please change his mind on stopping the school sports partnership. Please I’ll even beg him if I had to”.

What has the world come to when young children desperate to play sport must beg the Government to do so?

[Mrs Chapman]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. If the Government cannot listen to the Opposition, perhaps they can listen to Bradley from Sedgefield.

Alison, the school sport co-ordinator in Darlington, said:

“I believe passionately that we have an obligation to fight for what I feel is the right of every young person in a state school to have the equality of opportunity to find their physical spark.”

The Secretary of State needs to understand the anger, frustration and—frankly—the disbelief at such a rushed and ill-thought-through cut. It is a dog’s breakfast of a cut.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Chapman]

I will not give way because I want to make a progress and this matter is important to my constituents.

Hannah Marshall is a young woman from Darlington who benefited from the Darlington school sport partnership. Her energy and enthusiasm in embracing all the opportunities that presented themselves were sparked when she was in primary school—a range of experiences, competitions and activities were on offer through the partnership. Sport has changed Hannah’s life. She has taken advantage of many opportunities, but she has also made a massive contribution to sport in school and college, and in the wider community, through her voluntary work. Since leaving school, she has studied A-level physical education, biology and leisure studies, and now wants to become a PE teacher. She says:

“I’ve had the best time ever! I’ve loved the sport, playing football and volunteering. My advice is to get involved as much as possible. The more you put in, the more you gain.”

Those are wise words. The Secretary of State should listen to young people such as Hannah, who, unlike him, know what they are talking about when it comes to school sport.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Very simply, your own Secretary—[Hon. Members: “You?”] I apologise. Would you accept—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Lady accept that there would and should be a cut to the budget?

[Mrs Chapman]

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) indicated, if the Secretary of State would like to make the Opposition an offer, perhaps we could start negotiations.

To conclude, there are hundreds of Hannahs throughout the country, but their spark may remain unlit if we allow the end of school sport partnerships.

18:23

[Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) feels as strongly as I do that we need to find a way forward, which is why he was concerned about the polarisation of this debate. I would have no difficulty in attacking the previous Labour Government if I wanted to enter into such a debate. I would point out that, for several years, they failed to protect smaller playing fields after they had promised to do so; that, under them, obesity increased; that, when they claimed a wonderful participation level of two hours of sport a week, they failed to mention that that included changing time; that, under them, participation in recent years hardly increased and that, sadly, the participation of women and disabled people has fallen; and that they made little or no dent in the drop-off in sports among people who had left school. That is what I would say if I wanted to be negative.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Foster]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman before I talk about the positives.

[Mr Smith]

While the hon. Gentleman is not being polarising, and in the spirit of consensus that he says he espouses, does he agree that it would make sense for the coalition Government to respond positively to the constructive offer that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) made? Common cause can be made and we can find a way to save the essential infrastructure for the invaluable work that those partnerships—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Interventions must be very short. The right hon. Gentleman should know better; he has been here long enough.

[Mr Foster]

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is, broadly, yes, as I will say in my conclusion.

If I wanted to be positive, I would praise the previous Government for their work, for example, in building up the links between schools and sports clubs. Above everything, that increased the opportunity to provide a wider range of sports, so that more children are more likely to find a sport that they like. I would also praise the work that they did in developing the amateur community sport status, which gave tax benefits to sports clubs, and the way in which they restructured and simplified the landscape of the various sporting bodies. In particular, I would praise them for the excellent UK school games, which had a great effect on very many young people—it took place in my constituency of Bath.

The debate has also been polarised on the question of whether the school sport partnerships scheme was excellent or varied. The obvious truth is that there are examples of very good practice and of not such good practice.

Surely the House wants to ensure that it provides a lasting sporting legacy from 2012. That is what we are all about. We know that if we are to do that, we must ensure that we have coaches, volunteers, sports facilities and many other things, including a proper support structure for sport, whether for school, amateur or elite level sport. The one thing that is clear to me is that school is where it all starts. If we can get sport provision right in school, particularly by linking schools with clubs, we have a real opportunity to provide that sporting legacy from 2012.

The Government are right to have introduced the innovation, building on the UK school games, of the schools Olympics—or whatever it will ultimately be called—because that will boost the amount of inter and intra-school competition.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the UK games for young people. Who will organise the UK schools Olympics if we do not have school sport partnerships? The school sport partnership in Waltham Forest organises 112 competitions each week.

[Mr Foster]

I will come to that very fair point at the end of my speech.

The Secretary of State is right to point out the amount of red tape and bureaucracy in the existing scheme, and to say that we should devolve responsibility for decisions to the lowest possible level, and, within our education system, to governors and head teachers. However, there are two problems. First, if schools buy in services, they need to have a broad framework from which to purchase. Unless we take action quickly, we will discover that all aspects of the school sport partnership network have disappeared. That is why it is important to accept the principle that we need to find a way to maintain a base level of support within some sort of structure. Schools need something to buy in to.

I agree with the Secretary of State that there ought to be ways of slimming the bureaucracy and of the number of bodies. Within my own constituency, the county sport partnership—another excellent set of bodies that do excellent work—already work with our schools and some of the excellent staff who are involved with the school sport partnership to see whether they can find a way to build a framework into which schools can opt. With a little bit of additional support from the Government, that could be a way forward. I do not think that it is necessary to have county sport partnerships and school sport partnerships. Indeed, the divisions between school sport and community sport have been too great under the current structures and, as I have said, bringing them together has been beneficial.

To my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I say that I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that while some slimming of the structure is necessary, it has provided some excellent things and, with a smaller budget, there is a way of providing a basic framework whereby schools can bid.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also a matter of timing? Schools, rightly or wrongly, have great uncertainty about their future budgets and therefore are not prepared to commit to a pool. I am concerned that we could lose everything by acting too precipitately.

[Mr Foster]

My hon. Friend is right, which is why I have said that time is not on our side. People are being issued with redundancy notices—and that is a problem—and schools are not clear about how much money may be available in their budgets.

Broadly speaking, we are moving in the right direction, but we need a framework. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to talk urgently to the Youth Sport Trust and Sport England, because if they worked with him, he could put together a package that satisfied Members on both sides of the House.

18:31

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) who, at the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour has come up with a solution. If we do not do something as a result of today’s debate, people will be made redundant, so they will be gone and the infrastructure that is so important to school sport will be lost.

I heard what the Secretary of State said and, as an incoming Minister, he is right to want to look at all areas of expenditure. However, I was sad that he did not say that he had held wide-ranging discussions with the hon. Gentleman and with the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, because I well remember the debate that we had on BBC Radio 5 Live before the election, in which we all agreed about the success of school sports. The House should not underestimate the esteem in which our sporting infrastructure is held. After all, that investment led to our wonderful success in Beijing, with our biggest ever medal haul in the Olympics and Paralympics.

The infrastructure was important. We did lose out in school sport in terms of its competitive nature, and we can argue about the causes of that, but what was important was rekindling that competitiveness and putting structures back in place. I am sorry that the Secretary of State has not met Sue Campbell—although I understand one of his ministerial colleagues has done so—because she is an expert in sport infrastructure, not only in this country but around the world. I urge the Secretary of State to meet her to talk through these issues.

We set up the Youth Sport Trust so that it could look after school sport and youth sport. Sport England dealt with community sport through national governing bodies and whole sport plans, and UK Sport dealt with elite-level sport, which we hope will lead to a further medal haul in 2012 that will be the envy of the world.

The Secretary of State should also consider the added value of participation in school sport. Nobody has yet mentioned the sports leaders who volunteer to go from their secondary schools into primary schools. Primary school heads say that if the money is devolved, they will not have the time or the expertise to commit themselves to competition in school sports. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said, those young sports leaders will come to London next week under the leadership of Debbie Lute, who was herself a sports leader. The programme has given them self-confidence and self-esteem, which read across into their academic life. The issue is not just sport for sport’s sake, but what sport can do and the value it can add.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that year 5 pupils are involved in volunteering and starting to achieve qualifications as playground leaders and sports coaches? People become involved in the volunteering process from a very early age.

[Mr Sutcliffe]

I agree, and that is the way forward—surely it is the big society that the Prime Minister keeps talking about. It is an opportunity to develop people’s leadership skills.

The structure is important. We tend to view bureaucracy and infrastructure as all bad and to be disposed of, but the structure in this case is important. We were careful to ensure that the sports infrastructure met the requirements. There was resistance from some sports to get involved in school sports, and one of the things that we were able to do was widen the choice of sports available to youngsters. Traditionally and stereotypically, boys played cricket, football and rugby and girls played netball and hockey, and that was it. Children did not get an opportunity to do any other sports, which left lots of people out of sport. Through the Youth Sport Trust, and through work with the governing bodies, we opened up opportunities to try archery, fencing and a wide range of sports. It was not a question of participation at elite level, but about the opportunity to take part.

Many of my friends, and I still have a few—[Interruption.] I always include the hon. Member for Bath. Many of my friends became my friends through school and other sports that I have been involved in over the years, so the partnerships should not be thrown away. Urgency is now the name of the game.

[Angela Smith]

My hon. Friend mentioned the range of sports now practised in schools. Some areas of the country are also developing specialisms, such as mountaineering and orienteering in south Yorkshire, which, thanks to the partnerships, is having a huge impact in schools.

[Mr Sutcliffe]

I agree, and it has been great to see smaller sports being experienced in schools, which has been achieved through the network, through the school sports co-ordinators and through the opportunity to get involved in coaching. The Secretary of State said that we need to look at how we use sports throughout the school day, but the link between school sports and clubs was the opportunity to bring clubs into the schools and try to use the schools to the fullest extent in passporting people to participation. We have the route right for elite sports—if someone shows potential, they have a route to elite participation—but we also have a route for those who just want to enjoy their sport for the sake of it.

As sports Minister, a big issue for me was disability sport. The hon. Member for Bath was right to say that participation in disability sport should have been a lot better than it was, and there was a need for reform. Disability sport in school is also vital, although there is a transport issue. Some of the good practice in school sport partnerships was in developing ways forward for disability sport. We should be able to offer those with disabilities the same chances as other children to be involved in sport.

I am passionate about sport and I could go on for hours—although of course you will not let me, Mr Deputy Speaker—about what sport can do for our society. We must not miss this opportunity and I hope that the Secretary of State will take up the offer from my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State. If I can be of assistance in any way—I am sure that the hon. Member for Bath and the Minister for Sport and the Olympics would also help—I offer my services to try to find a way through this. If we lose this infrastructure, it will be lost for ever, and we do not want that to happen.

18:38

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

I am pleased to speak in this debate on an issue in which I am very interested. I had many positive experiences in school sports. Indeed, I lost many competitive games, which stood me in good stead in my political life. I was also the lead member for leisure on Swindon borough council and councillor for a new development ward. I support 100% the positive role that sport can play in encouraging a healthy and active lifestyle, and improving behaviour, team work and enjoyment. I want to focus on some constructive points, especially because I am so biased in favour of sport.

Before the debate, I took the opportunity to visit many of my local schools, and the school sport partnership organised some events to showcase exactly what it was doing, working with Swindon borough council’s leisure department. That gave me an opportunity to discuss the matter directly. From my visits in my constituency, I can draw not only many positives, but—crucially—lessons to ensure that we can secure for young people the maximum sporting opportunities.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

There have been positive experiences in this process, but it has been patchy. One deputy head teacher whom I spoke to this morning said that the local school sport partnership had taught those involved what they had forgotten, but that it would not be a complete disaster if it disappeared, because they would be able to continue through other mechanisms. There is good and bad, and we should move forward and give head teachers the powers they need.

[Justin Tomlinson]

People involved in the school sport partnership I saw were understandably extremely positive, as were Swindon borough council and some of the head teachers I met—although not all of them—so my hon. Friend raises a fair point, which strengthens the case for giving head teachers more choice. I want to be positive and constructive, but I am biased, because I have seen first hand the benefits that sport can bring.

I return to what I have seen in my constituency. Clearly we have in place a greater range of activities than would typically be offered. Many Members have mentioned that point already—in particular, I noted the speech by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman). One sport I saw was street dancing, which is extremely popular, especially among females—probably off the back of the inspirational “Pineapple Dance Studios” television programme. The crucial message is that it goes beyond the core traditional sports. I am a great believer in competitive sports—I was sporty myself—but trends change, and we need to capture the imagination of children to get them active.

We have to sustain engagement post-event. We have to ensure that, after children enjoy a taster session of external sports clubs, they continue to engage long term. In Swindon, we are good at that, because we have a successful sports forum of 60 sports groups working with the council to promote its activities.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I want to associate myself with my hon. Friend’s positive comments, because based in my constituency is an effective school sport partnership working with 74 primary schools, nine secondary schools and two specialist schools. He made the point about links with clubs. In a remote, rural area such as Cornwall, it is very difficult for young people who develop a passion for sport to find fixtures and opportunities to expand and develop—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but interventions have to be very short. A lot of hon. Members want to speak. If hon. Members are going to intervene, they should keep their interventions short.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend’s excellent intervention. In the 10 years I was a councillor, the achievement I was most proud of was setting up the sports forum to get sports groups to capture children’s imaginations and take them beyond. I welcome her intervention.

We have to improve and increase the provision of high-quality physical education and school sport, especially through training. A number of PE teachers have said to me that, through the school sport partnership, they were equipped with a broader range of skills. We also have to increase the number of healthy and active pupils. We have all been quoting statistics today, and I will quote some relevant to my constituency. In Swindon, the number of schools doing two hours of sport a week has risen from 33 to 68. I was most inspired by a gentleman called Dave Barnett of Robert Le Kyng primary school, which, I must confess, is in the neighbouring South Swindon constituency. He has worked to deal with children with behavioural issues, and to get students active and—crucially—enjoying it. That is a major factor that we should not overlook.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

We are all enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s contribution—it could be replicated around the House. My Salford school sport partnership is equally good and has equally impressive statistics. I invite him to vote with the Opposition tonight, because he clearly supports school sport partnerships.

[Justin Tomlinson]

That is a kind intervention. However, I will finish my speech, and then the hon. Lady will see where I sit on this. There have been many successes in Swindon, but that is not necessarily the case throughout the country—I conceded that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy)—so we should look at the broader picture.

I want to mention some positive Government measures to which hon. Members have not referred, for example the Troops for Teachers programme. One of the lessons I have learned is that there is not a sufficient pool of teachers confident enough to deliver a broad range of sporting activity. If ever there was a new wave of teachers who could fill that gap, it is soldiers, so I welcome that initiative. I also welcome the measures to protect playing fields and support the principle of the school Olympics and the plans to invest in leisure infrastructure as part of the Olympics legacy.

I also have my own brief wish list. I would like greater provision of accessible open space in new developments. I touched on this matter in my maiden speech and in a number of Westminster Hall debates. I know, from when I was younger and from having represented a new development ward, that when someone is inspired by sport on the television and wants to go and use jumpers for goalposts, they need somewhere to do it, but too many new developments are concrete jungles and do not provide those opportunities.

We should encourage local authorities and schools to open up their buildings and facilities to local sporting groups and organisations. We also need to work with the youth service. There is now a crossover between traditional sport and youth provision: things such as street dance and cheerleading fall into both categories, because they are traditional sports and are what the youngsters want to do. We also need to tackle the issue of insurance. A number of PE teachers raised with me the point that inter-school competitions require students to be driven to schools, but in some cases it costs £1,000 to insure a teacher to drive a minibus. That proves to be one of the biggest barriers.

In conclusion, it is essential that schools understand and support sporting activity and opportunities. As an MP, I will continue to lobby on this locally in my own small way, and I will continue to visit my schools. Given that schools will effectively now commission this work, I echo the need to have in place a basic framework, as suggested by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster). Those opportunities must continue. Schools themselves can then judge whether the relevant activities are being offered to inspire and increase participation; whether we are working to link with local sports clubs and organisations to sustain engagement; and whether they are receiving the training ultimately to deliver more of their own tailored sporting opportunities that their pupils want. I hope that school sport partnerships can, as in the case of Swindon, prove to their local schools that their work should continue to be commissioned, and I urge the Minister to set out how he will encourage that.

18:46

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who made some very positive comments. I can fully understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) invited him to join us in the Lobby tonight—he seemed to agree with our motion. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), the former sports Minister, who is highly regarded across the House for what he achieved in that post.

Last week, it seemed clear that the Government believed that school sport partnerships did not work, despite the facts and the completely opposite view of many of those involved. They believed that partnerships did not deliver and fell short of expectations, and that the investment in them did not result in a commensurate outcome. However, the same message is not coming across today, especially in the comments of some Government Members. I sense a more open approach, so I will be interested to hear the Minister’s winding-up speech.

The Government’s view was at odds with the opinions of individuals and organisations immersed in the world of sport, as we have heard already. Mr Chris Willets, the Tower Hamlets school sport partnership manager, has advised me on the impact of the partnership locally. In 2006, the average number of timetabled minutes for physical education was 99, but is now 127; the number of newly qualified teachers supported to deliver PE was nil, but is now 55; the number of teacher and sport training courses was nil, but is now 73; the number of pupils involved in inter-school sports competitions was 9,000, but is now 15,000; the number of primary inter-school competitions was one, but is now 37; the number of secondary inter-school competitions was three, but is now 25; the number of young people playing sport outside school was 4,000, but is now 11,000; the number of young people involved in representative sport was 31, but is now 237; the number of young people coaching, leading and volunteering was 1,700, but is now 5,100; and the number of professional coaches working in schools was nine, but is now 57. That trend applies to many other statistics that I will not quote.

Those might only be statistics, but they are powerful numbers and they do not—nor can they—convey the huge benefit to young people that sport brings. They do not convey the pleasure, joy and character building that sport delivers, and they cannot explain what a school sport partnership means to young people in a borough such as Tower Hamlets. It helps not just with health, but academically, as I am told by the excellent head of Langdon Park community school, Mr Chris Dunne, whose school was designated a sports academy in 2008. The question being asked in my constituency is: how much longer is Tower Hamlets to bear the brunt of cuts dressed up and designated by the coalition merely as changes designed to make funds “more targeted” or “more effective”? The abolition of the education maintenance allowance has been similarly dressed up, ultimately being dispatched by the Government to make way for “more targeted support”.

[Craig Whittaker]

I agree that all Members of the House believe that sports in all parts of the UK create added value, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the important thing is the mechanism for delivering that sport? There is a college not a million miles away from my constituency that receives part-funding for a teacher, not for sport but for arts and design. That is why we need change.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the shadow Secretary of State, made it quite clear that we are prepared to engage in trying to ensure that whatever system we have works for the benefit of young people. Last week we were told that the whole £162 million budget would be completely lost—or replaced by £10 million—and that the school sport partnerships would be deconstructed. The Secretary of State, for whom I have the highest regard, asked today by how much we would cut the budget, and in response my right hon. Friend said, “Let’s talk about it.” Let us try to ensure that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater, so that we can protect the good and improve that which can be improved. That is the way forward.

The abolition of the education maintenance allowance has been dressed up, ultimately being dispatched by the Government to make way for “more targeted support”. However, as with the school sport partnerships, that rings hollow and is unfathomable to young people locally. All they have are the realities: school sport partnerships delivering unprecedented interest, involvement and achievement in sport among children and young people in Tower Hamlets, just as the EMA helped them to strive to achieve their potential in further and higher education. Many young people in Tower Hamlets do not approach sport from a position of privilege, any more than they approach further or higher education from a position of privilege. As noted by others, the Government know that the money must be protected. It is to their great discredit that they cannot be honest about what they are doing to communities such as mine.

However, as I have said, I detected a change in tone from the Secretary of State. I hope and pray that he takes up the invitation from my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State to engage in talks with Members and advisers to see whether we can arrive at a better solution than that which the Prime Minister suggested last week when, in answering questions, he completely dismissed everything about school sport partnerships. Last week the coalition was for eliminating the funds and abolishing the structure. Today I sensed the Secretary of State acknowledging that there was merit in many of the schemes across the country. I hope that I am right, but I fear that I may not be.

18:53

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s listening mode, and I assure him that I appreciate the need to evaluate school sport partnerships. It is important to be clear in that evaluation about the difference between inter-school sport and intra-school sport. It has been said that 80% of children do not take part in inter-school competition, but that is hardly surprising, as it is representative sport at that level. Very few schools will enter competitions with anything other than their best team. Clearly, it cannot be the case that everyone can take part in inter-school competition or that it will replace intra-school activity.

The Secretary of State said that he was concerned that schools were now advocating activities such as rock climbing and dance rather than rugby or football. It is important to find the right sport for the right person, whether it is a more traditional team game, an individual sport or two hours of aerobics every week. Nothing gives me more pleasure than visiting a school and witnessing pupils who would probably never want to participate in competitive sport, but who do participate in street dance, for example. As long as young people are active and are enjoying sport and learning all the lessons that come with it, it should not matter whether they are cross-country runners, table tennis players or stars of the first XV rugby team. That is where school sport partnerships have come in, helping to deliver a wider PE curriculum than a PE teacher could manage on their own.

In principle, I agree with non-ring-fenced budgets and with more decision taking by individual schools, so I ask myself: why do I have reservations about schools making their own decisions, especially if the £162 million really is distributed among schools? If all schools pooled their money—and if it is definitely in their budgets for that purpose—life would be perfectly straightforward, as long as the local authority can provide the leadership. However, as I pointed out earlier, that works only if everyone signs up in advance. The feedback that I am getting locally is that head teachers are so uncertain about their budgets that they will not commit in advance until they see their budgets. There is uncertainty about what the pupil premium actually means, about the ending of extra grants for specialist schools and about much more. I am aware that the Secretary of State has gone out of his way to reassure people, but sadly there is still uncertainty. That is why I feel that we should not just stop the initiative dead. We should evaluate and make improvements, but we also have to move at a timed pace and put steps in place, rather than just saying, “This scheme will come to an end by April 2011.”

I would like to refer briefly to some comments made by one of my constituents. In part, we have focused on some of the bad experiences with school sport partnerships, but I want to celebrate some of the good experiences. In east Dorset, school sport partnerships have given all school children access to high quality coaching in a number of sports and, by organising festivals and tournaments, have allowed children the opportunity to compete and co-operate with children from other schools, as well as giving them access to facilities at the larger venues. It is through such initiatives that children become enthused by sport and develop life-long habits and skills. In addition to the more traditional sports of football, netball and rugby, children have had the opportunity to discover sports such as karate, basketball, archery, badminton and athletics that might not otherwise have been on offer. Thus, all children have the opportunity to find a sport that will interest them.

Sport plays a vital role, and it should be an integral part of a child’s education. It has obvious health benefits, but it is also important for personal development, communication skills and giving children self-confidence. It is impressive to see young sports leaders from middle and upper schools who have been given the chance to organise events, referee matches and do coaching, giving them skills that will be useful in any chosen career. With that responsibility comes more mature attitudes, and older children become role models for the younger children they lead. I am concerned that, without the work of the partnerships, the current level of participation in sport will not be maintained. The smaller schools will have difficulty offering the variety and quality of sporting activities possible at present, and the provision of sport could become patchy and piecemeal. I make my remarks in a constructive manner, and I urge the Secretary of State to give the issue a thorough review.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Annette Brooke]

I want to leave time for other speakers.

18:58

[David Heyes (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I want to use my few minutes to tell the House what the decision means in my constituency, in Tameside and Oldham. Both the New Charter academy in Tameside and Failsworth school in Oldham have made remarkable progress since they attained sports college status. The improvement in results and the progress made by students at both schools have been tremendous, and that applies right across the curriculum, not just to sporting achievement. Those two schools are the basis of school sport partnerships in their boroughs, each covering a group of secondary schools, colleges and 30-odd primary schools. The SSP funding pays not only for the partnership development managers, but for their teams of part-time sports co-ordinators and primary liaison teachers—all teachers, not bureaucrats.

In the Failsworth partnership, regular participation in competitive sport stands at 45%, and in Tameside the figure has reached 62%, the third highest participation level nationally last year. In Tameside and Oldham, physical education and school sports have been transformed by school sport partnerships, and it is a tragedy that all this hard work and achievement risk being blown apart by this ill-conceived and spiteful cut. While the most noticeable progress has been made in the sports colleges, it is in the primary and special needs sectors that the cut will have the cruellest impact. In the words of Emma Heap, the Tameside development manager:

“These measures will take us back ten years.”

The loss of dedicated SSP funding, of infrastructure and of facilitation and partnership work will inevitably lead to piecemeal, patchy sports provision in the primary sector. Talent will not be spotted at an early enough age for children to become Olympians or sports professionals, and the opportunity to develop transferable skills such as teamwork, leadership and volunteering—all of which can be developed through sport—will be lost. Some of our greatest sporting achievements in recent years have been in the Paralympics, and I wonder what thought the Secretary of State has given to the potential damage he is doing to our ability to spot and nurture sporting talent among students with disabilities by doing away with SSPs.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the lives of even some of the most disabled young people, such as the pupils of Abbey Hill school in my constituency, have been enhanced through the school sport partnerships? Those young people are now going to lose those opportunities because of the Government’s decision.

[David Heyes]

What I am going on to say will prove my hon. Friend right.

One of my constituents, Jade, is 13 years old and she has spina bifida. She did not take part in PE very much and, being a quiet girl, tended to sit and watch the others. Thanks to a national scheme piloted in Tameside, however, school sports co-ordinators spotted Jade’s potential at a talent academy, an Active 8 session. She tried her hand at a wheelchair event, and quickly progressed to win a race at county level. Next, she took part at regional level and won again. She had another win at national level. The SSP introduced her to the local athletics club and generated support around her. She tried the javelin, again with much success. Her first throw was 5 metres. The Paralympic record was 11 metres, and Jade was only 12 years old at the time. She has great potential and, at an athlete identification day, UK Athletics identified her as a potential Paralympian.

Jade is just one of 400 pupils who have been through the Active 8 academy in the past four years, many of whom have moved on to sports clubs and ever greater levels of achievement. Jade’s parents are overjoyed at how far she has come, from being shy and retiring to being confident and successful. Her family put this down to the role of the SSP, the school sports co-ordinator and the competition manager at her school, without whom none of this could have happened. This is what the Secretary of State is putting at risk with his ill-conceived proposal, which will smash the infrastructure that makes all this possible for Jade and thousands of others like her. It really is not good enough to look to hard-pressed head teachers to provide the funds to maintain the skills, experience and infrastructure of the SSPs. Mainstream education budgets are being slashed, and difficult decisions will need to be made.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government do not seem to understand that it is in deprived areas, where parents do not have the money to pay for their children to have coaching or to join expensive sports clubs, that the cuts will take us back more than a decade to when sporting opportunities were the preserve of the well off?

[David Heyes]

Indeed I do agree with my hon. Friend. Her comment applies equally to my constituency.

The heads of both the sports colleges in my constituency have promised to do everything possible to continue the present level of support, but when they are battling to balance their books, it will be increasingly difficult for them to prioritise sport over maths and English. Head teachers and leading sporting figures are calling for a rethink, and even the Daily Mail describes the proposal as “idiotically destructive” and a

“false economy on a staggeringly grand scale”,

I want to end by urging Government Front Bench Members to heed those calls. I really hope that the Secretary of State will take up the offer from those on our Front Bench, but I am not optimistic. I am afraid that this is what happens when public schoolboys are running the country. This Government, and these Ministers, have not got a clue about the schools that are attended by 93% of this country’s children. Not only have they not got a clue, but, by scrapping school sport partnerships, they are showing that they have not got a care either.

19:04

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

This has been a timely debate on an issue of great importance for the future of our country. It is telling that, today, Members on both sides of the House have recognised the value of school sport partnerships. As the shadow Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), made clear in his excellent opening speech, we will continue to support the growing grass-roots campaign that is uniting head teachers, teachers, parents, young people, coaches and elite athletes across our country in defending school sport partnerships because of their past success and their capacity to transform the future for hundreds of thousands of young people. We will do so until the coalition reverses a decision that can be justified neither by the deficit nor by the performance of the Youth Sport Trust and school sport partnerships. Let us be clear, however, that we are willing to work with the Government to find a constructive solution. The speeches by the hon. Members for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) and for Bath (Mr Foster) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) demonstrated that there are people on both sides of the House who can play an important part in finding a solution.

As we have heard time and again since this ill-conceived decision was announced, youth sport can and does transform the life chances of so many young people, building confidence and self-esteem, which are pre-requisites to educational attainment. It supports the development of leadership and teamwork skills that are so beneficial in the modern world of work. It helps young people to stay healthy and to avoid the curse of obesity, which is our greatest public health emergency—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) made so well. Youth sport also ensures that some young people find a positive alternative to drifting into a life of crime and antisocial behaviour. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said, these are all reasons why dismantling support for school sport would be both reckless and short-sighted.

It is also a decision that thus far displays breathtaking arrogance at the highest levels of Government. The Secretary of State for Education wants to be viewed as an intellectual radical reformer and the man to restore the education system to the halcyon days of a mythical glorious past. Yet in the seven months since the election, he has sometimes shown himself to be too clever by half, even for a man of his undoubted intelligence. On this occasion, he has also shown himself to be uncharacteristically discourteous, imposing this draconian cut without ever visiting a school sport partnership, without ever having the decency to meet representatives of the Youth Sport Trust, and showing an astonishing determination not to allow the facts to get in the way of his decision.

It is bad enough to dismantle an infrastructure that has been the catalyst for so much progress, but it is unforgivable systematically to rubbish its achievements, distort its aims and write off sports teachers and coaches as bureaucrats. This has been low politics from people who claim to be the promoters of new politics. I genuinely say to the Secretary of State that true leadership means sometimes having to say, “I got it wrong,” or, at the very least, being willing to change direction. If he fails to do that, he will be a diminished, not an enhanced, figure in this House.

It will not be the kids and grandkids of many of those on the Government Benches who will suffer if the Secretary of State persists with this policy. Private schools have the best facilities, the most expansive playing fields and the best qualified sports coaches. Why should not the vast majority of pupils who attend state schools in our country have the same opportunities? I would have thought that that was a non-negotiable guiding principle for the Lib Dems.

How can the Prime Minister talk of his belief in the big society when the Government he leads are dismantling partnerships that have supported an increase of 800,000 young people acting as sports volunteers and leaders since 2007? That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (David Heyes). This Government do not seem to understand that a big society is often dependent on an active state.

Five years ago, on that historic day in Singapore, Britain was engulfed by a wave of pride and patriotism. Against all the odds, we won the Olympic bid on the clear prospectus that we would use the greatest sporting event in the world to inspire a generation of young people through sport. That commitment was made in the knowledge that we had the means and the ambition to transform an aspiration into a reality. Against that background, I ask the coalition, “Do you want your legacy, and our Olympic legacy, to be a generation of young people lost to sport, not because there is a better way or no alternative but simply because one Minister is hell bent on pressing ahead with an ideological approach to education?”

That Minister should consider these words carefully:

“I am devastated to witness the potential demise of this legacy with the sweep of Mr Gove’s pen. I wish that he had spoken to me, the teachers in our partnership, our students, our parents and our local sports clubs and providers before telling us that competitive sport in our schools was non existent.”

Those are the words of Jo Phillips, a school sports co-ordinator in the Prime Minister’s constituency. They should be a wake-up call not only to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, but to every Member of the House of Commons.

Our Olympic legacy does not belong to one Government or another; it is the torch that we pass from one generation to the next. That is why we will not rest until the coalition rethinks this decision.

19:10

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

We have had a very good, if truncated, debate, to which passionate and genuine contributions have been made by many hon. Members. I have to say, however, that I think the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) attended a different debate, and certainly did not listen to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Let me make one thing clear at the outset. This Government, this Secretary of State and this Minister are absolutely committed to promoting sport in schools and outside schools, and to all ages, as beneficial, positive, healthy, team-building, socialising and a fun thing to do. Some of us actually play it as well. The hon. Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts), who is no longer in the Chamber, might like to turn out next Wednesday for the parliamentary hockey team. I shall be leading it in Wapping. I note that his interests include watching rugby and football, but apparently not participating in sport himself. Above all, we want to see more young people engaged in high-quality sport, more often and more competitively, starting younger, for longer and, most important, sustainably into adulthood.

No one is talking about taking sport away from schools, and no one is talking about downgrading sport as an important and exciting part of school life. Head teachers have been responsible for ensuring the delivery of PE and sport in their schools ever since it was made a compulsory part of the national curriculum in 1992, and we have no plans to change that. The Government are not closing down school sport partnerships; what we are doing is ending the ring-fenced funding for them beyond the summer of 2011. Funding was never expected to be of unlimited duration—and, of course, we have still not heard from Labour Members what they would have been able to sustain given the disastrous economic legacy that they bequeathed to the country.

If schools choose to use their own sports funding to buy in the services provided by the school sport partnerships, they will be free to do so. Indeed, if they have been such a success in the eyes of schools, surely that is what those schools will want to do. However, we believe that that should be offered without the bureaucratic, costly, top-down infrastructure that school sport partnerships involve.

Despite the best intentions of the last Government and the best endeavours of many school sports co-ordinators and teachers, we simply are not aiming high enough or achieving nearly enough in return for the massive investment of £2.4 billion in public funding since the partnerships started in 2003. The question, therefore, is not “if” but “how”. It is about how we achieve more, how we get more young people involved, and how we change the whole ethos of sport in schools and ignite a spark in our young people that is sustained into adulthood—and not just because it is offered on a plate by a generously funded but highly prescriptive central Government offer.

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way at this stage. Let me briefly echo his points. The co-ordinator in my area has worked extremely well, but the difficulties were highlighted by a head teacher in my constituency who said that

“the strategy was both ineffective and also a perfect example of how ‘ring-fenced’ initiatives can be inefficient and bureaucratic.”

Do our children not deserve a better system?

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is right. It is a mixed picture.

The network of school sport partnerships did help schools to raise participation rates in a range of areas targeted by the previous Government, and schools should be given credit for that. I pay tribute to the Youth Sport Trust and to Lady Campbell, whom I have met three times in the last six months and with whom I have played extreme frisbee in Sheffield. The fact remains, however, that the proportion of young people taking part in competitive sport has remained disappointingly low, and definitions of what count as participation levels are hardly ambitious. I will not repeat the figures now.

What we need to do is enable schools to exercise innovation and autonomy. What interests me is how many inspirational men and women wearing tracksuits are motivating our young people on the sports pitch, not wielding clipboards and filling in forms back in the office. We firmly believe that the ideals of the Olympic and Paralympic games can be an inspiration to all young people, not only to our most promising young athletes. They embody the ethos of achievement and self-improvement that the best schools manifest in their sports provision for all pupils. That is why we want to see a new focus on competitive sports. Truly vibrant, sustainable sporting provision does not depend on a continuous drip-feed of ring-fenced funding, trickling through layers of bureaucratic structure with multiple strings attached. Instead, it must be integrated into the core mission and organisation of each school.

Our Government will get behind schools and teachers and help them to do what they do best: decide for themselves, individually and in collaboration, how to teach and develop their young people. The time for a top-down, centrally driven school sports strategy has passed. The days of a bureaucratic, top-heavy programme that saw extra funding soaked up by management, reporting and form-filling are, happily, passing into history.

What is important is delivering more high-quality sport for more children for longer, not a dogged attachment to the past structures of delivery. This motion from an opportunist and failed ex-Government is not the way in which to achieve that, and I urge Members to vote against it.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

19:16

Division 133

Ayes: 232

---

Labour: 221
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Liberal Democrat: 2
Independent: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Alliance: 1

Noes: 304

---

Conservative: 258
Liberal Democrat: 45

Tuition Fees

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

19:32

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the Government should publish a White Paper on higher education in England, setting out the full detail of its plans for higher education funding and student finance before asking Parliament to vote on whether to raise the fee cap; is concerned that major questions about how the Government’s market in higher education is intended to work remain unanswered; is concerned that recent graduates will be responsible for repaying loans for up to 30 years because the teaching grant is being cut by 80 per cent.; and urges the Higher Education Minister to bring forward publication of the White Paper.

The motion’s aim is clear: the coalition wants this House to vote to increase university fees before Christmas, but we say that the House should not vote before the Government publish their promised White Paper and before they answer the many crucial questions about how the new policy is meant to work. Can there ever have been a debate like tonight’s? When was the last time that a Minister—a Secretary of State and a member of the Cabinet—came to the House to defend a policy that he drew up on the same day on which he told the BBC that he might not even vote for it? And the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) is clearly an advocate for the duvet strategy, as he tells his Lib Dem colleagues, “Let’s pull the bed clothes over our heads and stay there until this nightmare is over.” It is humiliating for the Secretary of State, but it takes the arrogance and cynicism of this Government to new depths. Millions of parents and millions of future students are desperately worried about the cost of degrees, but all the Secretary of State is concerned about is saving face for the Liberal Democrats. Now the Deputy Prime Minister is at it, too; he has written today blaming the National Union of Students for putting students off university. This is the man who, in his own contribution to widening participation, said in April that fees of £7,000 a year would be a “disaster”. He has no shame.

The coalition will make English students and graduates pay the highest fees of any public university system in the industrialised world; they will pay up to £39,000 in fees and maintenance loans for a three-year course. This is the biggest change in university funding since the University Grants Committee was set up in the 1920s, and it will end funding for the vast majority of undergraduate degrees; there is to be an 80% cut. The Government want a crude higher education market in which student choice and student choice alone shapes the universities system. They have used the excuse of a limited contribution to deficit reduction in the short term to bring in a profound change of funding for the long term. But last week the Minister for Universities and Science admitted that £28 in every £100 loaned to students would have to be written off, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Higher Education Policy Institute have both questioned whether the policy will save any money in the long run. Will the Secretary of State admit that, as the Office for Budget Responsibility report published yesterday said, the cost of borrowing to fund student loans will rise from £4.1 billion a year this year to £10.7 billion in 2015-16, leading public sector net debt to increase by £13 billion by 2015?

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman and I might have our differences and our arguments, but will he make it clear that the policy that his Government introduced and the policy currently proposed by this Government have in common the same core issue, which is that there are no fees up front? He has not said that clearly so far, and the NUS tried to pretend that it is not the case. If we are going to have a serious debate, it must be on the basis that there is agreement that no student, full-time or part-time, will pay any fees up front. Can he be absolutely clear about that?

[Mr Denham]

I will come in a moment to the core issue that divides us. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the fees system that we introduced has no up-front fees—[Interruption.] No, the fees system introduced by the previous Labour Government has no up-front fees. The proposals introduced by this Government do not have up-front fees, but let me explain to him what the fundamental difference is between the policy of the previous Labour Government and that of this coalition Government. We took higher education public funding of universities to record levels, and the fees that we introduced brought extra money to the universities on top of record levels of public funding. The coalition Government’s proposals are based on an 80% cut in public funding to higher education, and the fees that graduates will pay under their plans merely replace the money that has been cut from higher education; they do not generate additional money. That is a massive difference between the policy of this Government and the policy of the Labour party.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Denham]

Mr Deputy Speaker, you know me well enough to know that I enjoy debating in the Chamber and I enjoy taking interventions. I am well aware of the huge number of Members on both sides of the House who want to speak, so I will take some more interventions, but just not now. I will make a little progress before I take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, because I am going to make a point that is relevant to him. These plans have huge implications for the devolved Administrations. The cuts will lead directly to reduced funding for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, making their decisions on university funding far more difficult.

This is an enormous decision with profound long-lasting implications. It must not be taken lightly and it should not be taken without all the relevant information being placed before the public and this House, but that is just what the Government want hon. Members to agree to; they want us to vote for a huge rise in fees while they keep every hon. and right hon. Member in the dark about key details of the policy.

Before I set out the key questions, may I say a few words about Lord Browne’s report? He was asked to write his report by the previous Labour Government and we should be grateful to him and his team for the diligence with which they set about their work. However, Lord Browne had two central presumptions with which we do not agree. First, we do not agree that 80% of university teaching grants should be cut or that the cost of most degrees should fall entirely on the shoulders of graduates, with it being relieved only if after paying for 30 years they still cannot clear the debt. Secondly, we do not agree that the university system should be shaped by student choice alone.

By common consent at home and abroad, England enjoys a world-class higher education system—not just in the disproportionate number of the world’s leading research universities but in the richness and diversity of provision across more than 100 universities and many further education colleges. That did not happen by accident. Successive Governments have been prepared to invest in higher education, but they have also allowed a high degree of institutional autonomy. It is the willingness to trust the academic and professional leadership of universities that has produced the excellence England enjoys today. It should not be lightly set aside.

[Mr MacNeil]

As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Conservatives and Liberals want to increase tuition fees. Labour introduced tuition fees and the Scottish National party abolished them. On St Andrew’s day, will he tell us whether he wishes that when he was in government he had followed the example of the SNP?

[Mr Denham]

No, I do not. As I have already said, this party put record levels of funding into English universities and the fees raised extra money on top of that. The strategy that has been followed in Scotland has been one of systematically under-investing in universities, to the long-term damage of the university system in that country. I believe that that is a mistake.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Denham]

I would like to make a bit more progress, for the reasons that I have given.

In defending the current system, let me say that it is not perfect. Student choice should be one, but only one, of the means by which it can be improved. On these key points, we do not agree with Lord Browne. There is nothing in the immediate economic circumstance that justifies betting the whole house on a higher education market for which there is neither justification nor evidence.

Of course, the coalition says, “You set up Browne, you should support him.” Let us be clear, however, that the coalition is not implementing Lord Browne’s proposals either. He says that his proposals are a complete package to be taken as a whole, but in significant respects the Government’s plans differ from his. He said that student numbers should rise by 10% over the next three years, that fees should not be capped and that there should be a clawback to deter unnecessarily high fees and that the right to go to university should be determined by academic qualifications. He proposed higher grants for middle income students. On all those things, the coalition has said no to Lord Browne. Last Thursday, at the Universities UK conference, Lord Browne signally failed to endorse the Government’s plans, although he was given every opportunity to do so. The coalition’s proposals are not Lord Browne’s. They are a bastardised, compromised, coalitionised parody of the Browne report.

What are the Government planning to do? Beyond the cuts in teaching grant and the huge rise in fees, it is far from clear. So two weeks ago, I sent the Business Secretary a series of questions that needed to be answered. I copied that letter to every Member of this House. I thank him for replying last night, but if his reply is the best he can do, he would have been better sending it second class without a stamp. He has failed to answer almost every important question. He says in his letter that waiting for the White Paper would be “unfair” to prospective students and their families, but students need to know exactly how they will be expected to pay back their debt. He says that universities need certainty, but they do not just need to know what the fee levels will be. They need to know what the access rules will be, what their responsibilities will be to fund outreach activities, how many students they will be competing for and how many institutions can offer degrees. None of those questions has been answered.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Has he seen the Business Secretary’s comments in the autumn 2010 edition of the Lib Dems’ “Scottish News Extra”? The Business Secretary likened tuition fees to the poll tax and said that they were an unfair weight around students’ necks. He went on to say:

“It surely cannot be right that a teacher or care worker or research scientist is expected to pay the same graduate contribution as a top commercial lawyer.”

Is that not exactly what he is going to do to students here?

[Mr Denham]

As it happens, I am familiar with the autumn edition of “Scottish News Extra”. My hon. Friend, wanting brevity, left out the best bit. They are still at it. The next bit of the article says:

“The Lib Dems want to scrap tuition fees across the UK”.

They are utterly shameless in what they will say, which can be contrasted with what they will do.

Let me return to the questions that the House has a responsibility to have answered before the vote. Last week, the president of UUK, Professor Steve Smith—I have summarised his speech, I hope accurately—said:

“Students, their families, and our universities, deserve to know the full details of what is planned.

The Government has promised a White Paper. But this has already moved back in its planning from before Christmas to next March. We then expect an HE Bill in 2011. But this is too long to wait for critical details…First, what does the Government plan to do about student numbers?”

He went on:

“The second unanswered question is the future of the teaching grant. How much will there be left in the budget and how will it be targeted…Thirdly, what provision will there be to support programmes such as widening participation?”

The Secretary of State says that he does not want to

“rush to judgement on the sorts of issues outlined in”

my letter,

“such as the future regulatory landscape and the parameters for supply side reform.”

Those issues will determine the market in which fees must be set. They are crucial to the decisions that universities have to make in the next three months. Although the Secretary of State does not want to rush to judgment, he wants this House to rush to judgment on introducing the highest fees of any public university system in the industrialised world.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that the Liberal Democrats stood at the last election on a policy of abolishing tuition fees over a six-year period. After legislation, that would have taken us well into the next Parliament—way beyond the period that the coalition has set for dealing with the deficit. Does not that demonstrate that their volte-face on tuition fees is purely political opportunism that means that they completely misled the British people during the election?

[Mr Denham]

I would have more respect for the Liberal Democrat position if they had not signed up to a total change in the philosophy of funding higher education. As I made clear, this is not a short-term measure because of budgetary pressures while the deficit is dealt with. It is the ending of the public funding of most university degrees. Surely if there was one principle that the Liberal Democrats were defending when they made that pledge, it was the idea that undergraduate higher education should be publicly funded.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Denham]

I shall give way in just a moment, but I want to make a little more progress.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Mr Denham]

I shall give way to my hon. Friend—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] He is an extremely distinguished education expert and he deserves to be heard.

[Mr Sheerman]

Has my right hon. Friend seen last week’s article by Sir Peter Lampl in The Times? He is a man who has done more for higher education than almost anyone in this country and who is totally unbiased in his politics, and he describes this double hammer blow to higher education as a disaster in a sector where we were world leaders.

[Mr Denham]

I did see Sir Peter Lampl’s article in The Times. It was a devastating critique of what is being proposed and it is all the more significant coming from somebody who supported the Labour Government’s introduction of top-up fees a few years ago. He is not a blind opponent of graduate contributions but somebody who has assessed the evidence of what enables students from poorer backgrounds to get to higher education and believes that this change will be damaging. Let me be quite clear: universities need to plan for 2012-13. Decisions will have to be taken by universities in the early months of next year, but only the Secretary of State’s indolence stands in the way of a full White Paper and draft legislation in January that would allow the House to consider the changes as a whole.

Let me take the issues in turn. How will graduates repay their debt? The Secretary of State said in his letter that

“we have put our costings and calculations in the public domain”,

but I had to submit a Freedom of Information Act request for the models before the Government published a so-called ready reckoner. The Library has now discovered that BIS uses a more complex model that has not been published. The Library told me:

“The ready reckoner version which has been published is a simplified version”.

So much for openness.

For all the talk of fairness, it is clear that middle-income graduates will pay the most. Library analysis shows that graduates repaying fees of £7,000 a year and a maintenance loan who work in middle-income graduate jobs will have to pay back 84% of a whole year’s gross earnings whereas those in the top 10% of earners will pay back less than half a year’s gross earnings. Million Plus reports today that the changes will leave between 60% and 65% of graduates worse off with middle-income earners being hit the hardest.

The coalition says that the threshold for repayment will be set at £21,000, but that is in 2016 prices. In real terms, that is the same as the £15,000 threshold that started in 2006 and is due for review next year. That is not generous: it is sleight of hand. Lord Browne said the threshold should be uprated every five years in line with earnings. The ready reckoner published by the Department assumes that it will be uprated every five years in line with earnings, but the Minister for Universities and Science, the right hon. Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), says only that there will be periodic uprating. I asked the Secretary of State whether that uprating would be laid down in law, but his letter is silent on that point. Even the dubious claims made about fairness depend on regular uprating in line with earnings, but if it is not in law it means nothing. The House must see draft clauses, not vague promises, before it is asked to vote on the fee cap.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I have always been opposed to tuition fees, including when they were introduced by the Labour Government. Does the shadow Secretary of State recognise that people such as he and I are in a particularly difficult position? We can do one of two things: play this issue for shameless politics or attempt to come up with an alternative. It is his job to ask questions, but when will he tell us his alternative?

[Mr Denham]

We have made it very clear that there are choices to make about the pace of deficit reduction. We would deal with the deficit but would not choose to make the reckless cuts across public services that the hon. Gentleman supports. There are also choices to make within Departments and we would not cut higher education funding by 80%. Neither would we want a system of graduate repayment that put all the burden on middle-income graduates. There are choices to be made and the hon. Gentleman should consider these matters carefully.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Denham]

I must make some more progress; many Members wish to speak in the debate.

Let me address fair access. The proportion of students coming from lower-income backgrounds has steadily increased, but education maintenance allowances are being scrapped for 600,000 students and Aimhigher is being ended. The ladders of opportunity are being chopped down as we debate tonight. What will happen to the widening participation money that institutions receive because it can be more expensive to support students from non-traditional backgrounds to successful graduation? Will they still get it or will they have to take it from their fees?

The Government want universities to fund outreach. How much of that is meant to come from increased fees, essentially charging students extra for the privilege of being encouraged to go to university? The Government say that universities can charge £9,000 in exceptional circumstances; will the Secretary of State tell the House tonight what “exceptional” means? Will universities that currently do well on widening participation be able to charge £9,000 or will it be only those that do not? Will universities be punished for failing to meet their access agreements?

How will the national student scholarship work? Is the £150 million for one year or for three? Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many students it will cover and at what income level? Will it even cover the students on low incomes who are already in the system? The House needs to know the answers to these questions. If it pays for a free year, will that be just for the most expensive courses in the most expensive universities? If so, why should a student taking a £27,000 course get their fee cut to £18,000 while a student taking a £24,000 course will still have to pay £24,000? Where is the fairness in that? If it is available only for some universities, where is the fairness for poorer students in other places?

We all want the Government to ensure fair access, but until these questions are answered all this is only warm words—and the Secretary of State will not answer. All that he will say is that if the fee cap is raised, he

“would expect to write a letter of guidance to the Director of Fair Access.”

Shuffling off responsibility like that will not do. He must know what exceptional circumstances means—he just will not tell us. But if he wants to hide behind the director of fair access, let him write to Sir Martin Harris today asking him to bring forward proposals in the new year so that the House can consider them before the fee cap comes to a vote.

Universities are over-subscribed, so it matters to students how many places there are. The fees that universities charge will depend on how student numbers are controlled and distributed. The Secretary of State says:

“We will need to continue the type of student number restrictions that the previous government imposed in order to control public spending costs”.

That is an extraordinary response because student numbers are tightly controlled both overall and by institution. If that does not change, they will not get their market. There will be no competition and no incentive to change. It will be the worst of all possible worlds with the highest fees, little or no new money for universities and no change. It makes a nonsense of everything the Government have said and we need to know what they really have in mind.

Will there be new private universities competing with public universities and will they get public funding as Browne proposed? The Secretary of State has said:

“We will set out proposals on new providers of higher education in the White Paper”,

but the House should know before we vote on the fee cap. What about part-time students? Yesterday the Government slipped out an impact assessment which said that

“we estimate that around two thirds of part-time students will not be eligible for fee loans. At the same time, the withdrawal of teaching grant might mean that fees are increased across the board (including for students not eligible for fee loans). This could have a negative impact on part-time participation overall.”

Is this what he means by a fair deal for part-time students? What about universities that train teachers? Their funding will be cut and their MPs will be asked to raise fees before Christmas, but the Department for Education’s proposals on funding teacher education will not be published until after Christmas.

We have no guarantees on fair payments, no guarantees on fair access, no guarantees on fairness for part-timers and no guarantees on student numbers. There are all these unanswered questions but the Secretary of State wants to push the vote through so that the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark can come out from under the bedclothes. These questions could all be answered by a White Paper before we vote, but the Business Secretary does not have a good record on White Papers. He promised us a growth White Paper in October, but it did not happen. It was then promised for November, but it did not happen. Yesterday, the Chancellor confirmed what officials had already told the Financial Times—that it was not going to happen because there was nothing to put in it.

With higher education we do not know whether the Business Secretary does not know what to put in a White Paper or does not want to tell us. He could publish the White Paper, produce draft legislation on repayments and have the vote on fees all in January. We all have plans for Christmas, but this is the day for him to tell the House that he cares more about the future of our great universities and our young people than he does about the chance to appear in a celebrity edition of “Strictly Come Dancing”.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Mr Speaker has decided not to select the amendment.

19:59

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

I urge the House to oppose the motion. I agree with the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) that this is a very serious and big issue. It arouses strong emotions—there are people out on the streets protesting about it—and I think we deserve something a little better than this anticlimactic procedural motion about whether to proceed with a vote before or after a White Paper. Surely, this is an opportunity for him to set out alternatives.

[Clive Efford]

rose—

[Vince Cable]

I will deal with interventions later.

The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen gave a revealing answer to an intervention from one of my colleagues, in which he acknowledged that there are alternative ways of allocating funding in my Department and in the Government. He did not tell us what they were, but we should examine those choices in detail. The House could reasonably expect, in this massive issue that arouses massive emotions, to hear some indication of what the main Opposition party envisages as an alternative to what the Government are doing.

It has never been explained in the House, but we hear on the grapevine that an alternative idea—the graduate tax—is doing the rounds. Personally, I was instinctively quite attracted to that idea, and we had it very carefully examined. I do not know exactly what the proposal is—whether it is what has been called a pure graduate tax or a system of graduate contributions of the kind we are introducing, which relates payment to the ability to pay. I do not know what the Opposition propose. What is their alternative?

The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues set up the Browne commission process to examine the options in detail and in general principle. It roundly condemns the alternative that I believe he favours—although I am not quite clear. His Government were in power for 12 years, overseeing student financing and acting on the basis of the Dearing report, which comprehensively demolished the arguments for the alternative the right hon. Gentleman now says he favours, so what is that alternative? What is it?

[Clive Efford]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Vince Cable]

I am not giving way at the moment; I may do so later.

What is the Opposition’s alternative? It is perfectly legitimate to ask questions and we shall try to deal with them. What is not legitimate is to create this enormous moral furore, with absolutely no alternative strategy whatever.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Vince Cable]

I shall deal with interventions in a moment.

I remind the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen that Members from all parties are skating on thin ice when it comes to student financing. He was in the House at the time, so he will remember the pledge on which he campaigned. The right hon. Gentleman quoted our pledge, so I shall quote the pledge on which he campaigned:

“We will not introduce top-up fees and have legislated to prevent them.”

He and his colleagues then voted to do just that.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

rose—

[Vince Cable]

Wait a moment. I shall deal with interventions later.

There was no coalition agreement. The Labour Government had a majority of 167. There was no financial crisis. At the time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going round telling us that Britain was outperforming every Government since the days of the Hanoverians. There was no economic crisis, yet the Labour Government introduced a system that transferred the burden of paying for universities from the state to individual graduates. They introduced it. We are now dealing with a real crisis and we are trying to deal with it in a coalition context. That is the issue the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen has to address.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman want to withdraw that last statement? It is wrong to suggest that the current arrangements withdraw funding from the state. He knows that his cut of 80% does that.

[Vince Cable]

What on earth were top-up fees designed to achieve? They were designed to get graduates to pay instead of the state—that was the whole point.

[Emily Thornberry]

If the right hon. Gentleman could have his time again, would he be for or against student fees?

[Vince Cable]

In the context in which we are now operating—an extreme financial crisis—I am introducing a policy that is a great deal more progressive than the one Labour left behind.

There is a problem, and before I move to the specifics, I shall deal with where the Opposition are coming from, particularly their new leader. Last week, he told the press that he was “tempted” to join the student demonstrations. He has had three days praying in the wilderness, dealing with the devil and deciding whether he wants to succumb to temptation. I do not know whether he has, but if he does, and if he addresses the students, I have been trying to imagine what he will tell them. I think the narrative would go something like this: “We feel your pain. We feel your sense of betrayal by the Government and the Liberal Democrats. We have applied our socialist principles, and we are going to produce a fairer system and lead you to the promised land. What are we offering you? What is our policy? Our policy is delay.” The policy is delay—procrastination. There is a new mantra for the National Union of Students executive: “What do we want?” “Delay.” “When do we want it?” “Well, maybe next year—probably.” That is the alternative on offer.

I shall now deal with the core issue—the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen himself identified it: how do we finance higher education? The last line of his motion is the only one with any substance; it relates to money and the 80% cut in the tuition grant. That is a serious issue, so let us try to deal with it.

The right hon. Gentleman was an education Minister so he knows perfectly well that there are three separate funding streams for higher education: student support, research and tuition. When we look at the picture as a whole, we see that at the end of the Labour Government about 60% of all student funding came from the state and the other 40% came from the private sector, from graduates and overseas students. As a result of the changes we propose, approximately 60:40 will become 40:60. It is a mixed economy and the state contribution is being reduced.

The question is whether that number is right. Should it be more or should it be less? If the state is to contribute, where should the money come from? The issue we all have to face is this: when we came into government, and I came into this job, I knew that my predecessors were going to cut the Department that I lead by between 20% and 25%. That was the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ analysis, which has never been denied. It is clear from the logic of not having protected Departments that that would have happened. That was in a Department, 70% of whose funding goes to universities. If the Labour Government were not going to cut the tuition grant for universities, we have to ask where the money would have come from.

I shall set out the range of alternatives. A 50% cut in further education was one possibility; another was a 40% cut in science and another was a 45% cut in the innovation and enterprise budget. We know that the previous Government would not have gone down several of those routes; they committed themselves to increasing the science budget by even more than us. I think the Labour spokesman on science made that very clear at our Question Time last week. The Opposition were not happy that we had maintained the science budget; they want to go even further. At BIS questions, they constantly raise the issue of regional development agency funding—they want to spend more money on that. Where will the money come from? Is it from the cuts they were committed to?

There is a choice. We understand that. What could have happened, although the Opposition have been very quiet on the subject, is that instead of raiding the universities, they could have made drastic cuts in the further education budget. That was the real choice: the further education budget for vocational training for young people who do not go to university. It is almost certain—indeed, it was being put in place when I joined the Department—that cuts in further education were already in train. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen has quite properly spoken of the substantial increase in funding for universities under his Government, but he did not point out that the further education budget did not increase at all. I think it actually fell in real terms. That reflects Labour’s priorities.

[Mr Denham]

That last point is wrong. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this whole argument is a farrago of nonsense because it is based on a premise about the level of the BIS budget that is wrong, as has been set out clearly by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor—[Interruption.] I do not want to prolong the intervention. The problem is that the coalition Government insist on denying what they are constantly told. The vote on fees will be a vote not on the policy of the Opposition but on his policy. Why will he not answer the questions that I properly put this evening? Why is he spending all his time doing anything other than answering the questions that I put?

[Vince Cable]

I will explain in a few minutes why I do not think delay is the sensible option. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledges, and his Opposition motion states, that this is essentially an issue about money and priorities. That is why I am persisting with the question.

It is possible that the Labour Government were not intending to cut further education. There were other options available. They could have cut universities without cutting the tuition grant. How could they have done that? They could have done so by drastically reducing the number of students, a course of action that, I believe, the National Union of Students prefers. But clearly it would be wrong, and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well from experience and research that increasing the number of university students is one of the best ways of promoting social mobility. So I assume that that is an option that the previous Government would not have taken.

We are left with one other basic option. What we could have done—it would have been an easy way out and we would have avoided many of the difficulties that we are having politically—is to have taken the money out of the budget and let the universities get on with it, not raised the cap. The student representatives might well have applauded that. We would have avoided all the difficulties that we are discussing tonight, but the effect would, of course, have been to starve the universities of funding, and our world-class universities would have been undermined.

Given the funding constraints, which the right hon. Gentleman faced as well, we had no alternative but to ask well-paid graduates to make a contribution later in life to the cost of university education.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Vince Cable]

I will take one intervention.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

I do not need to remind the right hon. Gentleman about the pledge to scrap tuition fees, but perhaps I do need to remind him that the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto said that policy

“is affordable even in these difficult economic times, and without cutting university expenditure”.

The right hon. Gentleman is widely regarded as an expert on economic affairs and the downturn. Did the Lib Dem manifesto get its economics so very badly wrong, or would a lesser policy of maintaining the status quo be affordable?

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman may have forgotten, but I think he was a Member of the House when his party committed itself to not increasing tuition fees, under conditions where there was no financial pressure at all. We face severe financial constraints. That is the reality.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Clive Efford]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Vince Cable]

No. I will continue.

We were driven to the logic of the Browne report, which the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen and his colleagues set up. In responding to it, we have done two things. First, one of the questions that I asked Lord Browne, which it never occurred to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to ask, was how do we make the system more progressive? I had to ask Lord Browne that because it was not part of his terms of reference. As a result, the Browne report has come out with a series of recommendations, many of which we have accepted, that make the system significantly better than the one that we inherited.

Let me deal with one of those measures, which relates to part-time students. The right hon. Gentleman talked about part-time students, but he forgot to mention that their fees were left unregulated by the previous Government. He has not mentioned that two thirds of part-time students are postgraduates. That explains the anomaly and his question. For part-time students reading for their first degree, under the changes that we are going to introduce, there will be no up-front fees, which was the arrangement left behind by the previous Government. Part-time students get a significantly better deal under our proposals than they would have done under the Opposition.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Vince Cable]

I will take the intervention when I have finished the point. I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s views.

The second point that Browne adopted at our request in order to make the system more progressive was significantly to raise the threshold. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen asked legitimate questions about the pricing of the threshold and what that means in real terms. Those are valid points, but he did not point out that when the Labour Government introduced their threshold they did not increase it at all. So we are making a perfectly valid comparison between £21,000 and £15,000, whether those are in today’s prices or 2015-16 prices. It is a significantly better system in which large numbers—roughly 25%—of low-paid graduates will be better off under our proposals than under the system that we inherited from the Labour party.

[Frank Dobson]

I have the honour to represent Birkbeck college. Has the right hon. Gentleman just said that people who already have a degree and go to Birkbeck for another one will not get any help?

[Vince Cable]

The arrangements for second degrees under the existing regime are quite different, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, from the arrangements for first degrees. The proposal is that we treat first degree part-time students considerably more favourably than they are treated under the existing arrangements. If he checks back with Birkbeck college and with the Open university, he will note that those universities regard our proposals as a significantly better arrangement than the one they currently have.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Vince Cable]

I will take one more intervention.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is obviously having a difficult time answering questions about his policy in any detail. Let us try a straightforward question—yes or no. Is he going to vote for it? [Interruption.]

[Vince Cable]

Thanks to the shouting of the hon. Lady’s colleagues, I could not hear a word she said. Would she like to repeat the question?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am happy to repeat the question. The right hon. Gentleman is obviously having a difficult time answering any questions about this policy. I am asking a straightforward question—yes or no. Is he going to vote for it?

[Vince Cable]

I have made it absolutely clear in all the interviews that I have given today that my wish and strong inclination is to vote for a policy that I believe in passionately—[Interruption.] This is a policy that I believe in. It is a significantly better policy than I inherited. It is right.

The hon. Lady knows, because it operates in her party as well as in mine and in the Conservative party, that decisions on who votes are taken collectively. We will take a collective decision—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady asked me a question. I am trying to give her an answer. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) want an answer or not? We will make a decision based upon the coalition agreement as it affects my colleagues and our Conservative coalition partners. That is how we will vote, and we will do it in a disciplined way, but my own views are clear. [Interruption.] This is a significant—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Would hon. Members now please be quiet? I am finding it incredibly difficult to listen to what the Minister has to say, and if I cannot hear him, neither can they.

[Vince Cable]

Opposition Members will discover, when the regulations are introduced—

[Clive Efford]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Vince Cable]

No, I will not give way again. I have answered the question.

We will decide how we are going to approach the matter, under the coalition agreement. I am clear that the policy is significantly better than the one that we inherited. I am responsible for it and I have every intention of continuing to promote it.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Vince Cable]

I have answered the question. Let us move on.

[Clive Efford]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Vince Cable]

No, I will not give way again. I have dealt with the issue.

The issue of the Browne commission was raised, and I have made the point that I asked the commission to produce a policy that was significantly more progressive than the one that we had, and Lord Browne has done so. We have not accepted the commission’s report in its entirety, however; we have made significant changes to make it a better policy.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Vince Cable]

Will the hon. Gentleman sit down and let me finish the point?

The Browne report—a report commissioned by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen and his colleagues—recommended no limit on caps. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman remembers that. No limit was proposed, but we have proposed to limit the cap to a manageable and reasonable level that reflects the costs of universities. The report also suggested that—

[Clive Efford]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Vince Cable]

No, I am not giving way again.

The report also suggested that caps should be lifted without appropriate conditions for universities, but we are going to introduce those conditions. Let me explain them. We have responded in the circumstances that I have described to the need to make financial decisions; we have produced an outcome that a Labour Government would almost certainly have followed in very similar terms; and we have produced a policy that is more progressive than the one we inherited and better than the Browne report.

The right hon. Gentleman poses a question about delay. What are the merits of delay as opposed to proceeding immediately? There are several reasons why it is desirable to make progress. First, the Browne commission was itself an extensive consultative process, and the right hon. Gentleman knows because he helped to set it up. There was substantial discussion and public hearings, and he probably deserves some credit for having established an extended process that was so open. Many of those debates have already been had, therefore, and the evidence is available on which to make decisions.

The second point is a practical one, which I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands. If the cap is going to be introduced for the academic year 2012-13, it has to be introduced quickly. There is a practical reason, and that is why we have to proceed, but there are a series of issues—he has listed some—on which we clearly need to consult and reflect further. He quite rightly says that we need more detail on the national scholarship scheme, and we have suggested that an arrangement could be used to benefit students from low-income families by providing free tuition through, let us say, the first year of their university career.

There are different ways of approaching the problem, and we would like to talk to the National Union of Students and to university bodies about the best way of giving incentives through the scholarship scheme to low-income families. The current arrangements do not work well, as the right hon. Gentleman knows because he presided over the policy for some years. We have not achieved the level of participation in higher education by families from that background that we should have. After his period in office, 57% of all pupils in higher education came from advantaged areas, and only 19% came from disadvantaged areas. Surely, after the failure of programmes such as the bursary scheme, it is right that we reflect on and consider the best way of using Government money to achieve higher participation.

The right hon. Gentleman asks also about the access conditions, and again it is surely right that we consider all the evidence available. I will write to the regulator about how the situation can be improved, but, if the right hon. Gentleman’s party has anything to tell us from its experience in government, I shall be very interested to hear it, because his Government set up the regulator six years ago, I think. As a result of that experience, the relative position of low-income students trying to get into the top third of universities has deteriorated. Their conditions of access failed as a matter of policy. Surely it is right that we consider further how we can make the policy work, and we shall do so.

[Mr Denham]

Before the right hon. Gentleman moves further beyond the Browne report, I must note that he referred to one issue that was at the core of the report: the uprating of the threshold. He and the Minister for Universities and Science have not yet said whether Browne’s proposal to uprate the threshold every five years in line with earnings will be made a statutory commitment. The Secretary of State has published figures that, he claims, show the system to be progressive—based on uprating by earnings every five years. Will he now tell the House whether that will be a statutory commitment?

[Vince Cable]

I can confirm that it is our firm intention to do exactly that. Whether the measure requires embedding in a statutory instrument is a matter on which we will seek advice, but I am very confident and very happy to have that commitment—the uprating by earnings of the threshold—made firm by law. How it is done—through a statutory instrument or subsequently—is a matter on which we clearly need advice. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to ask the question, but he should perhaps remind Labour Members that he had an opportunity to uprate thresholds and never did so when in government, despite the fact that his Government’s financial position was more comfortable than the current one.

[Clive Efford]

The right hon. Gentleman is missing one important point in this debate. Throughout the country, students are demonstrating not because of his technical arguments, but because the Liberal Democrats made a point of saying one thing to them at an election and started to say something completely different within hours of the ministerial cars turning up. Students are listening to what he says tonight, and what they want to hear is, is he going to vote for the proposal, yes or no?

[Vince Cable]

I thought that that intervention might be worth waiting for, but the hon. Gentleman merely echoes his next-door neighbour on the Opposition Benches, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), to whom I have given an answer.

I have sought to answer in correspondence some of the questions that the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen has asked, and I am happy to debate the technical points and to correspond further with him, because my colleagues should rightly have as much information as possible. That is how we intend to approach the debate. He said that the costings and calculations were not made available, but they have been made available—to him, his colleagues and the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The models are very complex ones that produce different outcomes depending on assumptions, and we are very happy to share them. We could have hidden them in a black box and pretended that the outcomes were true, but we have shared the assumptions and analysis and are happy to continue to do so.

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

Debates at elections and the Browne report’s methodology have been mentioned several times, but is not one of the fundamental flaws in the deliberative process that Lord Browne went through the fact that, although the report could have been published before the general election, the then Secretary of State, Lord Mandelson, deliberately made sure that we could not have a constructive debate during the campaign, because the Labour party knew that the report paved the way for a rise in fees?

[Vince Cable]

Well, my hon. Friend knows the background, as he was shadowing the portfolio at the time and spoke to the individuals involved. He makes that point, and it is useful that I finish on this note—

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

rose—

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Vince Cable]

No, I will not take any more interventions.

The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends commissioned the Browne report knowing perfectly well that what would follow from it was a recommendation significantly to increase the cap level for universities. That is what they were committed to, and that is what they would have done. We know, because of the financial position of the country and the commitments made by the former Chancellor and by my predecessor, that there would have been deep cuts in this Department resulting in a very substantial reduction in the support for universities, the consequences of which were inevitable.

It is sheer dishonesty and opportunism—[Interruption.] It is dishonest and opportunistic for the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to pretend that they would have done anything other than introduce recommendations to increase the graduate contribution, but with one significant difference from what we have done, because it never occurred to them that the graduate contribution should be made significantly more progressive. That is what we have done, and that is the proposition that I will be putting to the vote before Christmas.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. As hon. Members can see, a large number of hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. The Speaker has therefore imposed a five-minute limit on speeches.

20:29

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

Spending money on universities is not wasteful or unnecessary public expenditure. We need universities because they drive economic growth through the skills they impart to students and the new knowledge they unlock through research. The UK has some of the best universities in the world. One of the reasons the UK experienced stronger economic growth over the past decade than other countries in the European Union is that we have better universities and so a better knowledge base for our businesses.

York has two exceptionally good universities, and they have helped to drive economic growth in the local economy. Between 1997 and 2009, the number of jobs in York grew from 44,000 to 60,600—a 38% growth, far outstripping the national or regional average. Many of those jobs are high-tech, high-skill jobs, but they bring lower-skill jobs in their wake. The importance of universities is not lost on our economic competitors. State investment in universities grows apace in India, China and many other countries. Indeed, other OECD countries, which, like the UK, are having to cut their public expenditure, are also, almost without exception, increasing spending on higher education because they know that it will aid recovery.

Only the UK and Romania are cheese-paring their universities. I have first-hand experience of cheese-paring, because I was an academic at the university of York in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the last Conservative Government cut funding. Two years ago, Chris Patten, a former chairman of the Conservative party, made a speech in which he said:

“In just over a decade we doubled the number of students and halved the investment in each”,

which led to

“poorer pay, degraded facilities, less money to support the teaching of each student”.

I did not sign the National Union of Students pledge before the last election, even though I am a former vice-president of the NUS, because I knew that universities badly need extra money. I thought that a modest increase in what students pay after graduation would have been fair had there also been an increase in Government funding, but I cannot support the Government in increasing fees by some £5,000—almost £6,000—and cutting the tuition grant to universities by 80%.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the announcement made by the Welsh Government that fees will not be at full or near-full cost for Welsh-domiciled students, which achieves one of the key pledges of the One Wales agreement between his party and mine?

[Hugh Bayley]

I have not seen that statement, but I will look at it closely.

I cannot support the Government’s plans because they are reducing state funding for universities. That is a betrayal of the country’s future and a betrayal of the future of this country’s young people, especially young women. The Liberal Democrat manifesto pledged:

“We will…Tackle the gender gap at all levels of scientific study and research”.

The Library’s research paper on higher education funding, published on 23 November, reveals that women make up more than 80% of the bottom half of graduates by lifetime income and just over 1% of the top 30%. Yet the same paper says that average repayments as a proportion of lifetime income are more than twice as much for the bottom 50% as for the top 10%. That reveals how regressive and unfair the Government’s proposals are to women.

Under Labour, higher education funding increased by 25% and undergraduate numbers increased by 20%. The number of young people from York going to university for the first time increased from just over 2,000 in 1997 to more than 3,000 in 2008. York’s two universities received more than £150 million in capital from the Government between 2000 and 2010, rising from £500,000 a year at the start of the period to £28 million at the end. Now that legacy is being swept away by Lib Dem and Conservative spending review policies. It is no surprise that there is anger on the streets of this country—the big society seems to be finding its voice.

20:35

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

I welcome Lord Browne’s report and the six principles on which it was based, in particular those of increased student choice and of everyone having the potential to benefit from higher education, no matter what background they come from. It was an excellent piece of work, and was set up by the previous Labour Government, but it has apparently been rejected by Labour in favour of a graduate tax—although I have difficulty understanding what the Labour party’s policy is, because it seems to be using a blank sheet of paper, and I am not sure what is on it at any given time.

Lord Browne specifically rejected a graduate tax, and the case against a pure graduate tax is damning. The shadow Secretary of State complained that graduates will be repaying loans for up to 30 years, yet they would pay his graduate tax for the rest of their working lives, resulting in some graduates paying the cost of their courses many times over. In addition, most graduates would have to repay separately any debt incurred for living costs while studying.

There are serious questions about the ability of a graduate tax to produce the necessary revenue to fund higher education. Faced with the record budget deficit left by Labour, a graduate tax would mean the Government having to spend an additional £3 billion a year for at least the next five years. According to the Browne review estimates, a graduate tax would not produce enough revenue to fund higher education until 2041-42. Importantly, a graduate tax would not give universities any additional incentive to focus on the quality of the teaching or student experience that they offer. The Browne review concluded that

“the graduate tax significantly weakens universities’ independence”

and that their relationship with students would matter “much less”. That cannot be the modern, forward-looking, 21st-century higher education system that we want for this country.

The shadow Secretary of State complained recently, as he did tonight, that the Government’s reforms will

“create a market in which solely student choice, shapes the size of universities and courses on offer.”

I wonder what he fears from a model under which students are fully empowered and can make informed decisions about the type of higher education that is best for them. Labour has always disliked personal choice because it instinctively prefers command and control structures, operated from the centre. Is the Labour party really suggesting that successful and popular universities should continue to ration places, forcing ambitious students to settle for their second or third choice? Universities are at their best when they are not dependent on Government for too much of their funding. Without some sort of market, there is no pressure for universities to improve their teaching quality or their student support to attract more students.

[Mr Lammy]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Wilson]

No, I will not because I have only one minute and 45 seconds left.

I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the reforms must not be half-hearted. If we are continually to drive up quality throughout the sector, there must be no student numbers cap for individual institutions. We must not be in a position under the new system where the state steers students into university courses that they do not really want to do and forces them to settle for second best. In the past, that has been done for the best, if misguided, intentions, but it is wrong to keep underperforming universities in their current form at the expense of the quality of the higher education that the student receives.

Facing up to the reality of higher education finance involves very hard choices, which the Opposition do not seem to want to take. It also provides a great opportunity to reform our university system for the benefit of all students and society in general. Faced with higher contributions after graduation, students should demand more from their university. Prospective students will rightly think much more carefully about their choices and demand more information about their university, such as its teaching quality, student support and the employment destinations of other graduates. That will force universities to ensure that their courses really offer value for money and provide evidence of that fact. Once some universities start to account for their performance, if others fail to follow suit students and parents will ask what they have to hide. That will be an incentive for universities to become more innovative, for example by offering shorter degree courses.

20:40

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Seven years ago, I helped to co-ordinate the Labour Back-Bench opposition to variable tuition fees and a market in higher education, both before a White Paper that was published a whole year before the vote and subsequently. I did it on a point of principle. I felt that I had not come into politics to make it more difficult for people like me, from my sort of background, to go to university, or to put young people who were qualified and determined to go to university, as I was, in a situation in which the price of a university course became just as much a part of the equation as what to study and where to go.

The Prime Minister and the Chancellor may not quite be on that wavelength, but I hope that the leader of the Liberal Democrats will realise that today there are still many young people in Sheffield, as in areas such as mine, on whom there is pressure to go out and work and contribute to the family income at 16. That is why the prospect of debt is important. It is another argument used to put pressure on young people not to go to university.

Labour Back-Bench pressure had real results on the market in higher education, which Liberal Democrats in particular might heed before rushing for an early vote on fees. First, right up until Labour’s White Paper went to print, the Russell group had expected fees of £5,000. It was no magical typesetting fairy that secured the cap at £3,000, it was simply Back-Bench strength and Government fear of defeat. As everyone was charged £3,000, no real market was created.

[Mr MacNeil]

As a student in the late ’80s and early ’90s, I followed people who are now Labour MPs in marches against loans, and then I saw those same people move on from the National Union of Students, become Labour MPs, get on television and advocate tuition fees. Was it a mistake for Labour ever to introduce tuition fees, and is the argument about whether they should be £3,000 or £6,000 just a matter of scale?

[Paul Farrelly]

The scale is certainly important. The level of debt that students acquire is fundamental to the argument about where the Government are going.

The second thing that we achieved was to secure better student support, through grants and new bursaries. Those changes to support were vital in offsetting the deterrent effects of higher fees on less well-off students. That is why anyone on the Government Benches who has concerns—not just Liberal Democrats—should insist on seeing the whole package in a White Paper before rushing to a vote on fees alone.

Thirdly, we gave MPs an opportunity to debate the matter by securing as part of the compromise the democratic handle that now exists, so that the cap could not be raised by the stroke of a Minister’s pen or by a Committee upstairs, hand-picked by the Whips. Instead, we ensured that there had to be a vote on the Floor of the House, so that we were all accountable for our votes.

Those days seem rather distant now, but after 2001, we had an enormous majority—I think about three times the size of the coalition’s majority now. Yet on Second Reading, 74 Labour MPs, including myself, still opposed the proposals, which is 17 more than there are Liberal Democrats in the House now. Every Liberal Democrat joined us in the Lobby, as well as all but one Conservative, and the Government scraped through by five votes, such was the level of concern.

I am rehearsing this trip down memory lane not to make myself popular with Whips with long memories but to prick the consciences of every Liberal Democrat, in particular, and to show what can be achieved by standing up and being counted. If most of the 57 Liberal Democrat Members who signed their election pledge stuck to their guns, we would once again prevent a market in higher education. They have much more leverage than we did, but seven years ago, Labour Back Benchers changed the policy enormously by taking up the battle.

I shall talk about the evidence later—anyone who cares about equality of opportunity will know that sound evidence should underpin sound policy—but as a slight detour, I shall shine some light through the fog of excuses that the Lib Dem leadership have been using to cover themselves. They said that the financial situation they found in government was worse than they expected when they made their manifesto pledge, but that is patently untrue, because the Treasury’s own numbers showed a movement of £5 billion to the better in projected debt from April to May this year.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

What did the hon. Gentleman expect when Lord Browne produced his report, because it was set up by Lord Mandelson, who I understand is becoming more and more popular in the Labour party? What did the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends think Lord Browne would say?

[Paul Farrelly]

I would have expected Lord Browne’s report to be put to the House, so that hon. Members could make their minds up on whether they agreed with it or not. I certainly did not expect a report that was not totally independent. It was shaped by the new coalition because the expectation was for an 80% cut in teaching grants. The notion that the report was truly independent is a fallacy.

The Liberal Democrats also said that we face Greek contagion, and how the promise of not 25 or 50% cuts, but 80% cuts in teaching must soothe the bond markets. They have tried to shift the goalposts. At Prime Minister’s questions recently, the Deputy Prime Minister, in a there-you-two-go-again moment, said:

“We all agree…that graduates should make some contribution”—[Official Report, 10 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 281.]

The trouble is that the Liberal Democrats never agreed that there should be a contribution. When the Business Secretary announced the U-turn, the Lib Dem website was still advertising, in the “What we stand for” section, their six-stage plan to abolish fees entirely. We know through leaked documents that the Lib Dem leadership planned to ditch the pledge all along if the coalition dream came true—as the first casualty, with no hard bargaining. I am sorry that the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Democrats is not in the Chamber because that is not new politics; that is time-dishonoured, old-fashioned cynicism. The only thing that has changed is that the Lib Dems are finally in government. No wonder students are demonstrating and no wonder that Lib Dem voters feel betrayed.

The new policy is not only a breach of faith, but according to the evidence, a large leap in the dark. Under Labour, the participation of people from less well-off backgrounds at university did not decrease, but frankly, neither did it rise dramatically. What seems to have occurred is common sense: improvements to student support helped to offset the deterrent effect of fees, debt and its perception. It has also become more normal for young people to want to go to university. There is similar evidence from overseas of what happens when fees are introduced—from Australia, Canada and New Zealand —yet there is also plenty of evidence of the harmful effects on participation from big increases in fees.

At some of our universities, participation has a shockingly low base, likewise in some of our professions, including medicine—the same is true of the US Ivy league—yet those are the places and courses that will charge the highest fees. Comparatively, our fees will be more than the general level in Australia, New Zealand and Canada, yet when Canada lifted the fee cap on courses such as medicine, there was a large fall in participation. It is hard to see what in the coalition’s policy will improve participation, but I fear that much of it will make the situation worse.

20:48

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this Opposition day debate. When I heard that it would be on the important issue of the future of higher education funding and the contribution that graduates will be expected to make, I thought that we would finally get to hear what the Labour policy on that is. The Leader of the Opposition supports a graduate tax, and the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer does not support that, so this was Labour’s first opportunity to make it clear how it would fund higher education. What a disappointment the Opposition motion is. It is bluster and waffle, and contains absolutely no policy. It is yet another example of shameless opportunism and opposition.

The coalition Government should take no lessons on tuition fees. It is worth reminding the House time and time again that it was the Labour Government who introduced tuition fees, after making an explicit manifesto commitment that they would not do so, and with an enormous Commons majority. It was also the Labour Government who were responsible for setting up the Browne review, with the explicit intention of increasing fees. But because they knew that it would be unpopular, they cynically delayed the outcome of the review until after the election to avoid losing votes.

Nobody should be duped into believing that Labour would not be proposing increasing tuition fees if they were still in government. The only difference would be that a Labour Government’s proposals would be an extension of the unfair and regressive tuition fees introduced by the previous Labour Government. All graduates would have been worse off, and we would not be expecting our wealthiest graduates to pay a reasonable contribution.

This evening, I want to make it very clear that I do not support a rise in tuition fees, and I have made it clear publicly that I will vote against any attempt to lift the cap on fees. Call me old-fashioned, but unlike the Labour party, I actually support free education and I believe that a first degree should be free. That is why I supported our policy to scrap tuition fees. The House should be clear that things would have been different under a Liberal Democrat Administration, rather than a coalition Government, but we have to face the fact that 66% of people voted in the election for parties that were committed to increasing tuition fees, so in coalition discussions it was always going to be difficult to win the argument on tuition fees and force them to be scrapped.

[Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is forecast that 30 cm of snow will fall tonight in my constituency. That is relevant because Lib Dem members are delivering the leaflet I am holding. Will the hon. Gentleman call off the leafleters until we see where the Secretary of State’s intentionometer settles?

[Mr Leech]

I am not sure how to respond to that. I do not even know which constituency the hon. Lady represents. In any event, I will vote against an increase in fees, even though I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has worked incredibly hard to come up with proposals that will make the system fairer than the current fees system. Nobody will pay back any fees until they earn more than £21,000, there will be no up-front fees for part-time students and additional support will be made available for poorer students.

I will vote against tuition fees simply because I believe that an increase in the cap will discourage some young people from going to university in the future. Under these proposals, the 25% least well-off graduates will be better off than under Labour’s current system, but the flaw in my right hon. Friend’s proposal is that no one goes to university thinking that they will be among the least well-paid 25% of graduates, so it will put some off.

I certainly will not support this lazy Opposition motion. It does not offer any alternative to an increase in tuition fees. It is not about any need for the Government to clarify its position—it is simply about party political point scoring. It is the Opposition who need to clarify their position, not the Government. The Labour party needs to come clean on its plans for higher education funding and student finance, so that its sudden cynical conversion to opposition to increased fees can be exposed for the sham that it is.

20:54

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

Does the Minister know what Antony Gormley, Mary Quant, Damien Hirst, Bridget Riley and Sam Taylor-Wood have in common? They are all past students of Goldsmiths college in my constituency—[Interruption.] I am sorry; it was not a joke. All have become leaders and innovators in their chosen field and brought honour to the arts in the UK. It is what Goldsmiths college, which has been part of the university of London for 100 years, is good at.

Today Goldsmiths college has more than 5,500 undergraduates, more than 3,000 postgraduates and close to 1,000 members of staff, and it is one of the top five employers in Lewisham. But for how long? Goldsmiths’ focus is on the arts, humanities and social sciences, and because of that, it can expect to lose most, if not all, its teaching funding—a staggering £16.5 million. Even as I say it, I can scarcely believe it. I say that as a science graduate who has always championed the cause of greater science funding.

It cannot be a question of either/or. Institutions such as Goldsmiths and the Trinity Laban conservatoire of music and dance, of which I am a director, have no options. Even now, they are unable to calculate the precise implications of the Government’s draconian spending cuts on their future funding or the fees they will need to charge.

[Mr Lammy]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that no other democracy has withdrawn funding in this way and effectively said that arts and humanities do not matter?

[Joan Ruddock]

I accept what my right hon. Friend says—he is correct, and of course it is a disgrace.

The Higher Education Funding Council cannot give these institutions the answers to those questions, and no doubt the Minister cannot tell them either—although I invite him to prove me wrong when he responds. These colleges’ fees structures will need to be decided by March next year, which is a mere four months away. [Interruption.] The Minister can clearly change the timetable, because it is his timetable that means that they have to decide in four months. How does an institution cope with the requirement to make up the loss of possibly all its teaching funding? What significant changes will it have to make to what it offers and how it offers it? It will have to rethink its whole modus operandi.

Yesterday, I spoke to constituents of mine who attend a variety of colleges making up the University of the Arts London. They told me of their own experiences. Some had been able to go to sixth form colleges and do A-levels in arts subjects only because they received the education maintenance allowance that the Government now intend to abolish.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern, which a lot of young people have also expressed to me, that the scrapping of Aimhigher and the EMA and the terrifying prospect of £9,000 a year of debt will put off thousands of young people even thinking that university is for them?

[Joan Ruddock]

My hon. Friend is correct, and I am sure that in her constituency, as in mine, there are many young people who really believe that all their hopes and aspirations have already been dashed because those ladders of opportunity have been cut away.

The students of whom I was speaking are today doing part-time jobs, which are increasingly difficult to find, in order to purchase many of the materials they need for their specialist courses. They already feel the burden of current levels of student debt, and told me that they could not possibly contemplate paying three times the current fee levels. The same is true for the students of Goldsmiths and for the many school children in my constituency who now despair of getting a university education.

Goldsmiths is known internationally for its creative and innovative approach to teaching, being ranked ninth in the UK for its world-leading, four-star research. I can only guess what fees of £9,000 a year will do to the aspirations of today’s young people. I cannot comprehend what the loss of teaching funding could do to Goldsmiths college. Frankly, I am astounded that coalition Ministers can propose such action and that Lib Dem Members could vote for it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that those who graduated and got their degrees in previous years would not have been able to do so if the tuition fees proposed by the coalition Government had been in place?

[Joan Ruddock]

Indeed I do.

Have the Minister and his Front-Bench colleagues no understanding of the long-term cultural benefit to society that comes from the arts, humanities and social sciences? Do Ministers not even comprehend the economic value of the cultural industries that thrived and grew so much in the past decade? Under coalition plans, university education will become the preserve of the rich, diminishing the diversity and talent of our creative and cultural sectors, and impoverishing us all. Ministers should hang their heads in shame.

21:01

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

In the few minutes available to me, I want to focus on two aspects of the debate that are of critical importance, but which are often overlooked in the heat—rather than light—generated by the Opposition. They are support for part-time students, and the Government’s wish to make the higher and further education sectors more flexible.

Both the Open university and the new University Centre Milton Keynes are close to my constituency, so I, too, have a strong local interest in the issue. Both institutions have welcomed the Government’s broad approach. In a speech to the Universities UK conference last week, the vice-chancellor of the Open university, Martin Bean, said:

“I believe we are on the brink of creating a more diverse, flexible and open system of higher education in this country which will provide greater choice and opportunity for young students and adult learners alike and which will have a strong focus on quality. This is a significant step forward.”

I completely agree with that sentiment. In our current economic climate, we need to have imaginative new solutions that will deliver focused, relevant and timely higher education at a lower cost.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are talking about an ideological decision that is not based on reducing the deficit? Repayments will not start until 2015, thereby not reducing the deficit during this Parliament.

[Iain Stewart]

I am not going to take any lectures from the Opposition about cutting money to universities when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the noble Lord Mandelson, cut some £900 million from the university budget just before the election.

What we are focusing on is what will be relevant for our higher and further education sectors. We must develop higher education options that respond to the fast-changing global economic environment. Long gone are the days when people got one degree that set them up in a job for life. People will have to retrain and reskill many times through their working lives. People will have more portfolio careers and will need more flexible training options to engage with our fast-emerging economic competitors. Improved support for part-time students is critical to encouraging people to study at lower intensities, combining work and studies in different proportions. I welcome the move to put in place a single, integrated system of finance and support.

I would like to raise one or two points of detail that my friends at the Open university have raised with me. The first, and most significant, is the definition of the intensity of a part-time course. The Government have announced that they will reduce the current level to the equivalent of one third of a full-time course, and that is a huge step forward. I must point out, however, that the Open university has more than 100 courses—they involve 25,000 students, mainly in science, technology, engineering and maths—that have an intensity level below one third. The Open university would like the intensity level to be set at about a quarter. I appreciate that that might be difficult to attain in a single step, but I hope that the Minister will at least consider averaging out the intensity level for the duration of a course, because students often want to start off at a lower intensity level until they become more comfortable with the subject, after which they can increase the proportion as the course progresses. I hope that that is a constructive comment that the Minister can take on board.

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

I will of course undertake to look at the specific point that my hon. Friend has raised on behalf of the Open university. Will he also accept from me that, contrary to what we were told by the Opposition, it is already the case that we will be helping two thirds of first degree part-time students with our proposal to extend access to fee loans to them? The only way in which the Opposition can attain their figures is by including, for example, part-timers doing a second degree, and the only reason that they are not included in the policy is that it was the Labour Government’s ELQ—equivalent or lower qualifications—policy that excluded them in the first place.

[Iain Stewart]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I know the impact that the previous Government’s changes to ELQs had on the Open university. It had to take a multi-million pound hit.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to join me in asking the Minister whether he will clarify a point about the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which this year is getting targeted funding of some £71 million to support part-time students and another £142 million to widen student participation? Will he ask the Minister whether those targeted allocations will be continuing at the same level over the course of the comprehensive spending review period? Is not the Open university, for example, entitled to some clarity on those questions as well?

[Iain Stewart]

I would have more sympathy for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention if he had not cut £900 million out of the HEFCE budget earlier this year.

The second point that I wish to make relates to the national scholarship programme, which has already been mentioned. I very much welcome it as an incentive to help students from more disadvantaged backgrounds, but will my right hon. Friend clarify whether, when the details are firmed up, it will explicitly encompass part-time students on lower incomes, and mature students as well a school leavers, within its scope? I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that as well.

Time prohibits me from exploring some of the other points that I would wish to raise. I shall conclude by making a few observations about making the higher and further education sectors more flexible. The University Centre Milton Keynes, which the Minister has visited, is based on the new concepts of cloud higher education, or University 2.0. These are exciting and innovative concepts, based on a partnership model that involves further education, a variety of universities, the civic community, the third sector and local business. There is much interest locally in taking this project forward and making it work.

I strongly commend the Government for setting out to make this sector more flexible and responsive, and I hope that by addressing some of the points of detail that I have raised tonight, we can make that vision a reality.

21:09

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I should like to start by saying just how proud I am that, in Scotland, under a Scottish National party Government, we will not be introducing these pernicious tuition fees. We will not follow the example of the Conservatives, the Liberals or Labour by burdening our students with crippling debt. We will do all that we can to ensure that in Scotland, education remains free. It will remain free to us because it is important to us. Scottish education was built on the foundation of being free, and our universities were built on that principle. It is a tradition, a history and a culture that we cherish, and we will not give it away lightly. Tuition fees, introduced by Labour and taken up with relish and aplomb by the Conservatives and their Liberal minions, are something that we will not—

[Ian Murray]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want him to say how sorry he is for introducing tuition fees, and to congratulate the SNP Government on getting rid of them.

[Mr MacNeil]

Apologise!

[Ian Murray]

I do not know what I have done to make everyone begin to be rude to me, but the Secretary of State started it, so perhaps I have done something wrong.

Let me compliment the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on the start of his speech. Will he comment on the massive amount of communication in which he has engaged with the Scottish people, which is similar to the communication in which the Liberal Democrats have engaged? Would he, too, lie to students at a general election by saying that he would write off all the student fees? Would he lie to students to get elected, and then turn his back on that pledge as well?

[Pete Wishart]

It will not surprise you to learn, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am disappointed by the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I expected a little contrition on Labour’s part, even if it consisted only of the words “We are sorry for introducing tuition fees”. If you were a student in Scotland and you had a choice, who on earth would you support? Would you support the Labour party, which introduced tuition fees, wanted to increase them exponentially and initiated the Browne report, or would you consider the SNP, which had nothing to do with tuition fees and even went as far as abolishing Labour’s graduate endowment? That was our commitment to free education in Scotland, and I make no apologies for it.

[Hugh Bayley]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I am sorry. I do not have enough time.

How do we differ from the London parties? We believe that education should be based on the right to learn, not on the right to pay. We do not share their view that funding higher education should be a matter for the student. We believe that higher education makes a valuable contribution to our communities which enhances our societies, and we therefore believe that higher education funding should come from the state.

I see that some Members are beginning to twitch. They are all thinking, “If Scotland is not going to introduce these pernicious fees, what is Wishart going on about?” They are thinking, “Surely the SNP only votes on Scottish issues, and is leaving this legislation alone.” That is true, but these pernicious fees will have a significant impact on Scottish higher education. They could have disastrous consequences for our universities. It is the job of every Scottish Member of Parliament in the House of Commons to defend and protect the Scottish interest, and I make no apologies for doing just that job.

I see that some Liberal Democrats are present. Do they realise—do they understand and appreciate—the impact that tuition fees will have on their higher education? In case they do not know what will happen, I will tell them. Because English universities will be awash with tuition fees—appropriations from their students—we will be at a competitive disadvantage. The fact that we will not have the same development and resources to provide research facilities to attract international students could have disastrous consequences. Moreover, because tuition fees come from the students themselves, they will not be subject to the departmental Barnett consequentials. As the budget for English education rises, our share, determined through the Barnett consequentials, will fall. Of course English students will see Scotland as an attractive prospect.

[Hugh Bayley]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I will.

[Hugh Bayley]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the note from the Library, but it tells us that in the five years since top-up fees were introduced in England, the number of applications to English universities has increased by 16%, whereas in Scotland it has increased by only 8%. Why does the hon. Gentleman think more students are choosing English universities?

[Pete Wishart]

I was going to give a figure myself. I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s view on it, although I am not able to give way to him again. Because the SNP Scottish Government have rejected the idea of tuition fees, fee refugees from England are going to Scotland to take places at Scottish universities, thus denying university places to Scottish students, and that will increase. That is because students who might otherwise be facing a lifetime of Clegg debt will, of course, look at Scotland as an attractive option.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I will not give way as I am running out of time.

I want to be as generous as possible to all the other political parties represented in this House, as I always take what they have to offer in debates very seriously. We know the Tories’ position. The Minister for Universities and Science is described as “Two Brains” and it is Tory thinking that runs through those two brains. Of course tuition fees is a Tory idea. We know that; that is the sort of thing they do—they hurt the poor and they make sure students will have to pay for their courses—but Labour, for goodness’ sake, introduced tuition fees and voted to increase them exponentially, although, thankfully, they were defeated in that. Labour also initiated the Browne review, but now in opposition they let out a howl of protest about what the Tories are going to do, yet we have no idea what they would plan to do.

The Liberals are the comedy act in this turn. Breaking this pledge might be the biggest suicide gesture in modern political history. We have seen the leaflet that was handed out in Scotland opposing tuition fees just at the point when they are going to introduce them, but we should not mock the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) because he is the good guy now. We have to get the Liberals with us to ensure this measure can be beaten. It is up to them; they can ensure that this is seen off. It is up to the Liberals to make sure they do that.

The Scottish Government will not be cajoled or bullied into following this course of action. We are going to have to consider our response, given what this Government are going to do. We have ruled nothing out other than these tuition fees. We must defend our universities by making sure they are protected and they remain world class, but we will oppose this. We make no apologies for ensuring that Scottish universities are maintained and protected, and that we have the best universities in the world.

21:16

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I do not deny for a minute the passion of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), but as was pointed out in an intervention, his party promised it would abolish student debt. There was no coalition; there was a minority Government. Yet within a week they said, “We only promised this because we didn’t think we’d win the election. We couldn’t afford it; it was uncosted and it was undeliverable.”

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Malcolm Bruce]

No, I will not give way.

I also want to make it clear that, interestingly, the abolition of tuition fees in Scotland was delivered by the Liberal Democrats and Labour working together, and the abolition of the graduate contribution was delivered by the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats working together. We are not at all a party that comes to this issue embracing the principle of tuition fees; we are a party that has engaged with genuine integrity in a coalition, which has led to our being faced with deep and difficult decisions that none of us finds easy or comfortable, and we are not pretending that we do.

I also want to make it clear that as a result of devolution and the Calman reforms that are coming, the Scottish Parliament and Scottish politicians can decide to have free university education in Scotland for as long as we can prioritise that within the budget. There is not an obligation upon the Scottish Parliament to follow suit. As the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire rightly said, it is equally true that we will have to ensure that we can maintain our universities to world-class standards and fund them, as is also the case for the universities in England and Wales. The difficult question to be faced is that we must consider not only how we can fund them today, but how we can fund them in five, 10 and 15 years’ time. I completely accept that we can take a decision to do this for free, but if we do I doubt whether we will be able to maintain our universities’ world-class status, or 40%, 50% or 60% participation. Most importantly, if the Liberal Democrats were to disengage from this process I doubt that the students would welcome the consequences of our not having been there.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the doubting Thomas performance from those on the Government Front Bench that we have witnessed tonight has done nothing to convince the students outside—or, indeed, the ordinary public—that this Government actually have a policy on fees that is fit for purpose? Does he also agree that it is the duty of the Government not merely to attack the Opposition policy, but to come up with a policy that they are convinced of themselves—that has the conviction of the Government and that takes this House forward on a note of conviction, not of attack?

[Malcolm Bruce]

What is clear is that the Government have a policy, whereas the Labour party absolutely does not. I have the utmost respect for the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who spoke with genuine commitment and sincerity, and I take the point that she is making. But what does she say to people who tell her that under this system they will not be able to go to university, that they could not have gone to university or that their children will not be able to go? Does she say, “You are absolutely right. You should despair. Just despair”? Does she not say that they should have a proper look at what is actually being proposed? I accept entirely the cultural fear that people have of debt, but there are no fees to be paid up front, increased maintenance support—grants and loans—is available and people pay the money back only as and when they earn salaries that are rising. People from poorer backgrounds should seriously reflect that that gives them more opportunity to go to university than ever was the case before.

[Joan Ruddock]

Frankly, the right hon. Gentleman insults the intelligence of my constituents, who understand very well that there are to be no up-front fees to pay, as indeed there are not at the moment. It is the overall burden of debt for a lifetime that they are afraid of, and rightly so.

[Malcolm Bruce]

What I would stress to the right hon. Lady and to the students if they will engage and listen—the ones that I have spoken to have done so and have accepted this—is that this is a much more progressive arrangement than exists at the moment and than the Labour Government set up. The repayments are generally lower—for 20 to 25% of people they are significantly lower—but for the higher earners they are higher. Consequently, this is a much more progressive system. The truth is that if a parent or young person is considering going to college or university, they face no up-front fees. If they come from a poorer background, they can obtain a higher maintenance grant than is currently available and larger loans than are currently available, on a fairer rate of exchange, and repayments start only when they are earning—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Malcolm Bruce]

I am not going to give way. The repayments are entirely related to what people earn.

[Mr MacNeil]

You pay your fees.

[Malcolm Bruce]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I had the privilege of going to a privately funded school and university, but I did not get the opportunity to go to Oxford or Cambridge because my father was not prepared to pay further fees for me to do the entrance exam, to delay further and then to pay for me through one of those universities. I have no regrets about going to the very good Scottish universities from which I have graduated, but the point is that if I was in that situation today, I could decide for myself that I could go to Oxford or Cambridge because I could get the funding and I would pay it back when I had got the benefit of that education.

This is simply a matter of calculating that an education is a benefit to the entire state—the state should therefore facilitate it, support it and maintain its quality—but it is also a benefit to the individual. Some individuals will use that benefit in ways that are less commercial—they will do things that do not earn them a great deal money—but they will therefore not pay anything like the whole of that investment back; they will not be required to do so. They would be if there was a graduate tax—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Malcolm Bruce]

I am not going to give way. Secondly, people can also make the calculation, “I made the investment, I made the repayment and if I choose to seek commercial benefit from it, it is only reasonable that I should pay a contribution back.” In one way or another—this argument applies even if we opt for free tuition and free fees—the individual pays it back through general taxation. The difference here is that we are trying to connect it to the actual education.

I suggest that our approach has an implication for quality. Two things will drive university quality up: the demands of students and competition from other universities, nationally and internationally. It is fair enough to criticise our policy, with which many of us are not entirely comfortable. However, I suggest to Opposition Members that to be credible in doing so it behoves them to come up with a viable alternative as to how they can ensure that our world-class universities will continue to have access to the funding that will maintain them as such and ensure that the students who go to them will have enough influence to ensure that they get the quality of education that they deserve. That is what this is about; this is a difficult decision, but Opposition Members need to engage much more intelligently in the debate.

21:24

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow two fellow Scottish Members, although we had a rather delusional performance from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). It is understandable—he is still feeling a bit dizzy after the economic crisis in Ireland, on which they are modelling Scottish independence.

Let us return to the debate at hand. Anyone who has witnessed the huge and largely peaceful demonstrations against the coalition’s plans will appreciate just how important the issue we are debating is for thousands of students, school pupils, teaching staff and parents. I shall surprise hon. Members by saying that I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister. Before the election, he said:

“If we have learnt one thing from the economic crisis, it is that you can’t build a future on debt.”

Now that he is in government, he conveniently forgets that our future is our young people. The coalition Government are hitting them with record levels of debt as they leave university.

The future prosperity of our country depends on the UK’s being a skill-based economy. To drive that, we must invest in higher and further education, not cut teaching grants by up to 80%. The plan is, in effect, a Tory-led privatisation of our higher education system.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend raises the important point of the 80% cut in the teaching grant. Does he agree that that is a profound retreat from state funding of the British university system?

[Anas Sarwar]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and that is why we need a wider debate on the role of the state in educating our young people.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Anas Sarwar]

Not just now; I will give way in a wee moment. I am coming back to the Scottish angle, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to intervene on that point.

The question is who benefits from a university education. Is it, as the coalition believes, only the student who benefits, which means that they should pay most, if not all, of the costs? Or does the country as a whole benefit from a well-educated work force driving our economic prosperity? That is the ideological debate we need to have in this House.

No matter where one goes in the world, unrivalled importance is attached to education. When the Business Secretary and the Prime Minister had their bonding session in China, they might perhaps have learned the Chinese proverb: “If you are planning for a year, sow rice. If you are planning for a decade, plant trees. If you are planning for a lifetime, educate.”

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

On investment, will my hon. Friend join me in asking the Minister why only his Government, along with the Romanian Government, are cutting university spending at a time when every other OECD country is increasing investment in its higher education system?

[Anas Sarwar]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that the Minister will respond to that point when he makes his speech.

Right hon. and hon. Members may be forgiven for thinking that this issue solely affects England, but that could not be further from the truth. The proposals will have profound and far-reaching consequences for the rest of the United Kingdom. I have two universities in my constituency in Scotland and 80% cuts in higher education funding in England mean that Scottish universities stand to lose at least £400 million a year. It also has consequences for Scottish students who wish to study in England and English students who wish to study in Scotland.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the hon. Gentleman feel that it was a mistake that the Labour party first introduced tuition fees in this country—and will he say sorry?

[Anas Sarwar]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention but I will take no lectures from a Scottish Government and an SNP who stood at the election promising to scrap student debt for every student across Scotland and who failed on every single promise. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire asked why young people would ever vote for the Labour party in Scotland, but he should look at the polling data for the general election and the opinion polls for the Scottish elections that are coming up. We outpolled the Scottish National party in the youngest bracket—18 to 24-year-olds—and I think that that will be reflected in the results in May.

I also want to take the opportunity to say that the Scottish Government must stop dithering.

[Mr Willetts]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intrude on this Scottish argument. Do we not have here a very clear comparison of the two systems? Does he accept that we have fees and loans in England and a very different system in Scotland? Contrary to what we heard, will he confirm that it is therefore very significant that we have 4,900 English domiciled students going to Scottish universities but 11,500 Scottish students coming to English universities? What does that tell us about the two systems?

[Hugh Bayley]

That is under Labour’s system.

[Anas Sarwar]

Indeed. The Minister does not recognise that the decisions taken by his coalition Government will have a massive impact in Scotland. We cannot have this dithering from the Scottish Government; we cannot allow a situation in which students go to university in Scotland without knowing how they will pay for that education when they leave. Even the most hardened right-wing Government Members have to admit that far from being fair and progressive, these plans are some of the most unthought-through, unfair and aggressive that the coalition Government have announced so far.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

The point that my hon. Friend is making about the cuts of 80% in teaching grant is the important issue of the day. If our students are to have quality education, they must have quality teaching. Cutting the teaching grant is not the way to encourage people to stay in university teaching or to encourage our universities to expand. In Wales, the university teaching grant will be cut by only 35% to ensure that good academics stay in our universities.

[Anas Sarwar]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and agree wholeheartedly. Under the coalition’s plans, a couple with three children and one income of £35,000 could save £100 a week for 20 years and still not be able to pay for their children to go through university. It is not wealthy people who will be penalised; instead, the firefighters, teachers, police officers and small business owners will suffer.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Anas Sarwar]

I have given way plenty of times but I need to carry on.

It is time that the Liberal Democrats stopped being so shameless on this issue. As we have heard already, in the past few days, the Business Secretary has been delivering leaflets—not personally, but he has been quoted in them; perhaps he should go out and deliver them and then he might get the reaction in the Scottish streets. A headline on the leaflet reads “Cable attacks unfair UK university fees”, and the text goes on:

“Liberal Democrat Business Secretary Vince Cable has launched a scathing attack on…unfair tuition fees which still have to be paid by Scottish students studying elsewhere in the UK. He likened tuition fees to the infamous poll tax, as the fees are seen as an unfair weight around students’ necks…The Lib Dems want to scrap tuition fees across the UK, as they did in Scotland in 1999”.

Wake up and smell the coffee! I signed the pledge to vote against these fees and I will honour that pledge.

21:29

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

May I declare an interest in this fascinating debate? Like the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), I represent two universities and I want to lead the debate on to them.

Lancaster university is a multi-million pound business that reached the top 10 of English universities; indeed, last year it was top in performance in physics. It makes a massive contribution to Lancaster and the wider Lancashire economy and it hopes to develop and proceed in what it perceives as a global market. That point has not been mentioned tonight. It wants to provide the best tuition and facilities.

Before the election, the pressure for an increase in fees came from universities. The previous Government faced that issue by cutting a certain amount, which Lord Mandelson did, and, to be fair to them, by setting up the independent Browne review. There might be an argument about whether that was kicked into the long grass to prevent Lord Browne from saying anything before the election because Labour needed to compete in so many university seats, but I would not suggest that. Labour set up the review and waited for the report. As a result, the whole of the previous Cabinet did not sign up to the pledge, although many Labour MPs—116, I think—did. I went to university debates in my area and I did not sign the pledge, but every single opponent of my candidature did—except the British National party, but I do not think that it was offered the opportunity to sign, thank God.

That was the situation. Now, universities say that they want a system that can fund them. I do not want to go into the deficit argument, but I think we all accept that things are tight.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that 40 years ago there were 600,000 students in higher education, 20 years ago there were 1 million and today there are 2.4 million? That is a very good thing, but when there are such fundamental changes we have to think again, as we have on pensions and social care and as we are doing now on higher education.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

And as we found out under the Labour Government, fees do not seem to hinder people wanting to go to good universities.

As an ex-teacher, the test for me is how we can increase social mobility. I shall repeat points that others have made, because they are important and they are being lost in the issue of marches and the encouragement by some Members of what they call direct action—something from the old days of the 1980s. That is the hypocritical line they are selling some students. At least we have maintained no up-front fees—as has been said by previous speakers. More important, a lot of students will pay far less in the future because the threshold has moved to £21,000, which is about £540 less.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

May I finish this point?

It seems to me that what has been left out of the debate is the Government’s commitment to finding £150 million for a national scholarship scheme, and I congratulate Ministers on that. The coalition has been trying to do what the Labour Government talked about but never achieved—joined-up government, through our proposals for the pupil premium and for the national scholarship scheme. We are going even further, by demanding that universities that want to charge the highest rate should do much more—not just through scholarships, but through the work being done by charities and voluntary groups, such as the Social Mobility Foundation—to encourage pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds at least to try to aim a bit higher.

[Mr Lammy]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

No, I want to finish this point and I have very little time.

The coalition is trying to deal with disadvantage not just in higher education, but in secondary and primary education. In these difficult times, we are attempting to make links between them and provide a world in which we have top-class education. Our top universities will still be competing with the best universities in the world, but with the increased involvement of children from disadvantaged backgrounds. That includes part-timers. Unlike the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), I do not believe the scare stories about kicking down the ladders. We are trying to put up ladders in very difficult times.

21:37

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Having enjoyed the irony of being lectured about dishonesty by the Business Secretary at the outset of the debate, I congratulate the Minister for Universities and Science on his honesty in setting out the context for consideration of this issue in his response to questions following his statement to the House on 3 November. He made it clear that the Government’s response to the Browne review was only partly driven by the need to deliver the cuts demanded by the Chancellor. He said that it was about

“delivering reform as well as saving public money.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 944.]

However, as with the decisions being made on the economy, it does not have to be like this. There are choices, and the Government are making the wrong choices. The choice is not just about funding; it is a fundamental remodelling of our university system, which follows a worrying ideological trajectory that was perhaps best described by the hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), who is no longer in the Chamber. It will transfer the cost of teaching from the state to students themselves. It will make our universities some of the most expensive in the world. It will withdraw all public funding from the majority of courses in the majority of our universities and will send a statement to all those who are teaching or studying the arts, humanities and social sciences that their courses are not worthy of support. It will introduce a market that encourages the best universities to charge up to 50% more for their courses.

What will be the impact of that new model? We know from research and from experience in the States that debts of up to £50,000 for fees and maintenance will deter those who cannot easily contemplate huge debts, those from families without experience of higher education, those from the poorest families and those from families on average incomes. The impact will be felt strongly in areas where we already need to do more to widen participation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) highlighted the case of medicine. The BMA’s modelling suggests that medical students will graduate with debts of about £70,000 and that the proposals will hugely damage efforts to encourage those from lower socio-economic groups to study medicine.

[Greg Mulholland]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

Yes, I will give way once.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I opposed the introduction of fees under the previous Labour Government. I would be interested to know if he did, too. He represents many students, as I do. Away from party politics, does he agree that whatever the merits of the different cases that have been argued here, the Government have not convinced people that their arguments are the right ones, and that it is important that there should be a delay in the process so that whatever is eventually proposed, students, academics, universities and all of us can support it?

[Paul Blomfield]

I certainly agree that there should be a delay in the process. We are on the verge of the most fundamental reform of our higher education system in more than 50 years, and it is an outrage that we are putting the cart before the horse by being asked to make a decision on the financial framework for our universities before we have had a debate on the higher education White Paper to conclude what sort of university system we want.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I signed the pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees. Unlike my neighbour, the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), I do not regret it. I did not make the decision lightly, but I made it with the intention of keeping it. On 12 October the Business Secretary casually dismissed the pledge with some obscure reference to “skid marks”, but let me remind Lib Dem Members that their pledge was no manifesto small print.

In university seats such as mine, the Liberal Democrats fought the election on the issue. As the president of Sheffield Hallam university students union said,

“Before the election, we couldn’t get the Deputy Prime Minister out of our Union . . . now we can’t get him in.”

The outcome of individual elections was determined by that pledge. Just days before the election, what was it that the Deputy Prime Minister said?

“The Liberal Democrats are different. Not only will we oppose any raising of the cap, we will scrap tuition fees for good . . . Use your vote,”

he said to students,

“to block unfair tuition fees and get them scrapped once and for all.”

Now we know that while the Deputy Prime Minister was making that heartfelt appeal, he was planning to ditch the commitment.

I accept that most Lib Dem Members who were kept out of the loop by the Orange Book faction that now leads their party signed that pledge with honest intention, and I urge them to keep to that honest intention. If they vote in favour of the proposals, not only will they be dashing the hopes of thousands of young people, but they will be destroying the confidence of those young people in democratic politics. This was the election in which the Liberal Democrats tried to seize the moral high ground, talking about honesty, trust, integrity—

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

No, I will not lose any further time.

Voting in abstention, knowing that Conservative votes will push the measures through, will also be seen to be deeply cynical, so I urge Liberal Democrat Members to honour their pledge, join Opposition Members and vote down the proposals.

21:45

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

We should be very grateful to Opposition Members for showing us the difference between opposition and naked opportunism, because tonight we have had more naked opportunism than we would get at a convention of lap dancers. Opposition Members know perfectly well what the problem is, because they caused it. It is a debt of £1 trillion, which doubled long before the banks crashed, and a deficit of £168 billion a year. That is the problem we face.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David T. C. Davies]

I will give way once and only once. The hon. Lady had better consider whether it wants to be heard.

None of us, from either side of the House, wishes to penalise students, but students join a long list of people who are lobbying us at the moment: the police, the armed forces, pension policyholders, Equitable Life policyholders and people with infected blood. They and many others all have a good case, and to all we note the same problem: we simply do not have the money, because, as Labour’s former Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, “The money has all gone.”

[Susan Elan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that in Wales the Labour-led Administration are already leading the fightback against the disgraceful policy that his party proposes. He often forgets what the majority consensus is in Wales, so will he please acknowledge that point this evening?

[David T. C. Davies]

The hon. Lady and I are both well aware that the Welsh Assembly Government had nothing to do with the £1 trillion debt, and I shall make it my business to ensure that they never do have any such responsibility.

The NUS could do itself a favour if it gave a few lessons to its students before encouraging them to negate their life chances by bunking off school. It should tell them about the £1 trillion debt, stop scaremongering and inform them that nobody will pay a penny up front. It is worth making that point again and again, because when I went to Monmouth comprehensive recently I found that the pupils who had taken time off from school were not all aware of that fact. No one on the Government Benches, or anywhere else, wishes to penalise people who want to go to university. That is why there will be no fees up front—I say it again. Not only that: we will not expect anyone to pay back a single penny until they earn £21,000 a year.

I do question—it is a personal view, with which I often find myself expressing in this House—whether it is wise for more than 50% of the population to go to university to do degree courses of three and sometimes four years when some of them will receive lectures, as one young lady told me, of only five hours a week. I question that. Not many others do, it is true, but, as long as we have that situation, it has to be paid for.

I take issue with one other point that the NUS makes. I do not disagree that it benefits all of society when people go to university, but it benefits all of society when people leave school and go and get a job, as I did. I did not go to university; I paid my taxes after I left school, and I did not disbenefit society by doing so. Some Opposition Members might sneer, but let me tell them that at the age of 21 I decided that I needed extra qualifications, so I went off and got a heavy goods vehicle licence, which cost me £1,000 of my own money in 1992—and that was a lot of money. It cost me a lot, so I made sure that I turned up on time, did not have a hangover and worked hard for those two weeks, because I knew that nobody was going to help me out if I failed.

One consequence of the scheme before us, which nobody wants to bring about, is that everyone will now ask themselves such questions: “If I’m going to pay for tuition, is this going to get me a better job? Can I afford to go out to the student union bar tonight? Can I afford to miss that important lecture? Because, at the end of the day, this is my money, not just taxpayers’ money.” That is an important point.

None of us wanted to see this situation, but it has been forced upon us. The coalition Government are made up of people of many different political hues, let us not pretend otherwise, but one thing unites all Government Members. We are prepared to face up to the difficult decisions that Opposition Members will not face. We are not prepared to allow tomorrow’s generation to pay for the mistakes of yesterday’s politicians.

21:49

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

This has been an interesting debate, but what is clear at its end is that the Government are set to railroad through this House and the other place their plan to treble fees for students and their families. As my hon. Friends the Members for York Central (Hugh Bayley), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) have underlined, it is now clear that Ministers lack the political courage to spell out the full implications of the Chancellor’s unprecedented 80% cut in university teaching grant.

Each time there has been a major change in the way in which universities are funded and students supported, there has been a full and proper debate in this House, with Government having set out their proposals in full before a vote. Parents are surely entitled to expect Parliament to have considered in detail the arrangements for student maintenance, yet we have merely a pencil sketch before us, as opposed to the painted canvas that a White Paper could have offered. The Deputy Prime Minister worries that potential students are being confused and put off. Well, let him publish the Government’s White Paper and clarify once and for all what is intended.

Such a White Paper might be able to answer some of the many questions that students, their parents, universities, and now even MPs on the Government’s own side, such as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), are asking. As my hon. Friends and, in his own sweet way, the hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), who is no longer in his place, pointed out, how student numbers are controlled matters, because it sets the boundaries of the market. Draft those measures wrongly, and the pressures pushing fees higher will be even more considerable. On what basis will universities be allowed to set the so-called exceptional fees of £9,000? We have been told by the Deputy Prime Minister that these plans are a great leap forward because of the national scholarship fund, the more equal treatment for part-time students and the increase in the threshold for starting repayment being lifted from £15,000 to £21,000. Yet we do not know what is being cut to fund the national scholarship fund. Aimhigher has gone already, and other “widening participation” money is set to go too, perhaps. The fund is not looking quite so generous now. While equal treatment for part-time students might be a good thing, many vice-chancellors are now predicting that fees for part-time courses are set to increase dramatically, so I hardly think that part-time students will be jumping for joy either.

Is not the truth, as the Higher Education Policy Institute and the 2010 global higher education rankings confirm, that if these proposals go through, English students will be taking on levels of student debt not seen in any other country in the world, and England will have the most expensive public higher education system in the world? Is not the truth also, as Sir Peter Lampl of the excellent Sutton Trust, which has done so much to try to widen participation in higher education, put it, that

“we are about to embark on a university funding regime in England that is totally out of line with that of any other higher education system in the Western world”?

The Chancellor tells us that debts are a very bad thing. He says that we should not borrow too much and that we should see the national finances as being like the family budget. Then the right hon. Member for Havant (Mr Willetts) comes along and says that any family with ambition who wants a university place, or any 16 or 17-year-old or mature student who wants to better themselves, will have to burden their future family finances with years of higher debts. You really do not need two brains, Mr Speaker, to see that these proposals seem set to discourage extraordinary students from families on ordinary incomes from going to university. We know the penchant of Conservative Members to join exclusive university clubs, and now we know that they want to do to universities what the Bullingdon club used to do to restaurants.

Then there are the Liberal Democrats. We knew before today that their leader, the Deputy Prime Minister, had knowingly hawked his tuition fee pledge from one constituency to another, while all the time he and the other Orange Book Liberals wanted to ditch it. We now know, as of today, that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is willing to abstain—in an unprecedented scenario, to put the interests of his MPs before those of students and their families and our universities. In short, he is willing to put his party’s interest before the national interest.

In families and across universities up and down the country, these unanswered questions mean the difference between whether the brightest and the best will be able to go to the university of their choice to do the course that they want and is most suited to them. The Government should publish a White Paper to end this confusion. I commend our motion to the House.

21:54

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

We have learned a lot about Labour’s approach in this debate. We have learned that it wants delay; we have learned that it wants careful consideration; we know that it needs more information; and we know that it wants to go slow. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would put it, it wants to go slow, slow, slow-slow, slow. That is the only thing that Labour is offering. That does not just reveal the inadequacy of Labour’s approach to education; it matters, because if the changes that we propose were not in place in 2012, there would be a real financial challenge for our universities. The Secretary of State has made clear our commitment to delivering those changes.

By contrast, we heard from the shadow Secretary of State—

[Emily Thornberry]

rose—

[Mr Willetts]

No, I have only five minutes.

We heard from the shadow Secretary of State that the speed of deficit financing is a matter of choice. He hinted that he would be willing not to make the public expenditure savings and to borrow the money instead. If he is willing to borrow the money instead, we know what Labour’s approach is—it is willing to impose debts on future generations. There is one difference between our approach and Labour’s: Labour’s approach is indiscriminate and would hit everybody, rich or poor, male or female, and ours means that people will start paying back only when they are earning more than £21,000 a year. That is why our approach to university financing is progressive and Labour’s is indiscriminate and unfair.

Of course, the £21,000 threshold that we propose is far higher than the £15,000 threshold that we inherited from Labour. That is not the only feature of our proposals that is fair and progressive. We are increasing the maintenance grant so that it helps families that earn up to £37,000 a year. The national scholarship programme is worth £150 million. Two thirds of first-time students who study part time will also benefit from our proposals.

Labour is completely disingenuous. It is not carefully waiting for more information or a White Paper, but simply playing for time while it tries to work out what on earth its policy is and whether its leader has the guts to follow the advice of his own shadow Chancellor:

“Oh, and for goodness’ sake, don’t pursue a graduate tax. We should be proud of our brave and correct decision to introduce tuition fees. Students don’t pay them, graduates do”—

quite right—

“when they’re earning more than £15,000 a year, at very low rates, stopped from their pay just like a graduate tax, but with the money going where it belongs: to universities rather than the Treasury.”

I could not have put it better myself. The only difference is that under our proposals, the threshold is not £15,000, but £21,000. We know which is the right approach.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Willetts]

No, I will not give way.

We know what Labour does when it is under pressure. In its last public spending document before the election, it proposed £600 million of savings from higher education. There was no waiting around for a White Paper then, no consultation and no careful consideration; just one paragraph on £600 million of cuts. By contrast, we have a proper set of proposals to reform higher education, which, contrary to what the Opposition said, will not mean catastrophic losses in funding for universities. Money can get to universities in many ways, and under our proposals it will get there through the choices of students. We will provide them with the extra money to make those choices, and that is—

[Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

21:59

Division 134

Ayes: 244

---

Labour: 225
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Scottish National Party: 5
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 307

---

Conservative: 265
Liberal Democrat: 41

Constitutional Law

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

22:13

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

I beg to move,

That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 25 October, be approved.

This draft order amends the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007, which makes provision for the conduct of elections to the National Assembly for Wales—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently interrupt the Minister? This matter is of very great interest to Members representing Welsh constituencies, so I appeal to the House to come to order. If Members do not wish to listen to the debate, they are of course welcome to continue their conversations elsewhere, but I am keen to attend upon every word of the Minister.

[Mr Jones]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The order makes provision for the conduct of elections to the National Assembly for Wales and was made under powers in the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Government of Wales of Act 2006. The draft order makes a number of modest policy and technical changes to the 2007 order, which comprehensively reflected changes made to electoral law since the previous order in 2003, in particular by the Electoral Administration Act 2006. The 2007 order runs to 273 pages, and I am sure that you will be relieved, Mr Speaker, to hear that I do not intend to speak in any great detail about its contents. I will, however, outline the main changes that would be made to it by the amending order before us.

Article 3 amends the definitions of “Assembly constituency”, “Assembly electoral region” and “elector” in the 2007 order to ensure that they are consistent with the Government of Wales Act 2006. The relevant provisions in that Act did not commence until after the 2007 order was made. The definition of “elector” also reflects changes to the Representation of the People Act 1983 made by the Electoral Administration Act, and this includes references to anonymous voters.

Article 4 amends the 2007 order in relation to registration appeals. Where decisions on appeals about entries in the register in respect of postal votes are determined before the election, these decisions will take effect and the register altered. The article also clarifies the relevant provisions under which an appeal can be made and a notice of alteration issued.

Article 5 makes an important change to the 2007 order. Currently, the election agent for a candidate in an Assembly regional election must have an office in that region. A number of political parties raised concerns about this requirement during the 2007 elections, because a party might wish to appoint only one election agent to represent all its regional candidates in an Assembly election. The previous provision, which required the election agent to have an office in the region, prevented it from doing so. Following a recommendation by the Electoral Commission, made after the 2007 Assembly election, this requirement is to be relaxed so that an agent’s office must be located within Wales, but not in every region of Wales.

Articles 6 and 7 make minor changes to the 2007 order to reflect changes made by the Legal Services Act 2007. Article 6 expands the definition of bodies capable of exercising regulatory functions over the legal profession. If a legal professional is found guilty of a corrupt practice during an election campaign, an election court must inform these bodies. Article 7 amends the relevant part of the 2007 order which requires the Director of Public Prosecutions to attend election courts, expanding the definition of whom the DPP may send as a representative. Articles 8 and 9 amend references in schedules 1 and 3 to the 2007 order respectively which we subsequently found to be incorrect.

Article 10 makes the most substantive change to the 2007 order by changing the design of the constituency and regional ballot papers. In October 2009, the Electoral Commission published its guidance on designing voter materials—it was called “Making Your Mark”—having consulted political parties, electoral administrators and disability awareness groups. This guidance highlights best practice when designing voter materials such as ballot papers to ensure that they are as accessible and intelligible as possible for voters. It is clearly in the interests of democracy that every eligible elector is able to participate in elections, and that the voting process is as clear and simple as it can be. In designing the new ballot papers, we have worked closely with the Electoral Commission to ensure that we adhere to both the spirit and the letter of the guidance.

Apart from the design, the key change is the removal of the names of those on the party list from the regional ballot paper, as is also the case in Scotland. Hon. Members will know that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which is currently before the other place, provides for the referendum on the alternative vote system for electing Members to this House to be combined with the elections to the National Assembly on 5 May next year. The provisions within this draft order are not affected by the combination provisions.

The Government and the Welsh Assembly Government are committed to working together to ensure that the polls next May are a success. Jenny Watson, the chair of the Electoral Commission and the chief counting officer for the alternative vote referendum, who will have the lead role in the combined polls, said earlier this month that the commission believed that

“enough progress has been made...to allow the National Assembly elections and referendum on 5 May to run smoothly”.

In preparing the order, the Wales Office worked closely with electoral administrators, including the regional returning officer for Wales, the Electoral Commission, the Welsh Assembly Government and the four major political parties in Wales. The provisions of the order are modest but necessary for the efficient running of next year’s Assembly elections, and I commend it to the House.

22:20

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Minister. As he said, the order is largely uncontroversial. The principal amendments are to article 39 of the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007, which stipulates that the office for an election agent for a regional election should be within that region; articles 114 and 133, which relate to the Legal Services Act 2007; and schedule 10, which relates to the format of the ballot papers for the constituency and regional lists. We are content that the amendments in articles 6 and 7 of the draft order, which expand the description of bodies regulating the legal profession that must be considered by election courts and describe the duties of the Director of Public Prosecutions therein, are entirely reasonable and appropriate, and we will be supporting them. We are also satisfied that the changes to schedule 10 described in article 10 of the amending order, which relate to the nature of the ballot papers, are also rational and evidence-based changes, based on consultation with all parties and the Electoral Commission. We will be supporting those, too.

We welcome, too, the change proposed in article 5 of the draft order, which amends article 39(2)(b) of the 2007 order and which, in keeping with suggestions made by the parties, the National Assembly and the Electoral Commission, allows election agents for the regional elections to have their offices anywhere in Wales, not solely within that region. That, too, is a sensible and practical change that reflects the realities of how political parties organise themselves for elections, with both regional and constituency bases. In fact, the changes to the constitutional law described in the draft order are all reasonable and sensible amendments. They have all been drafted after respectful consultation with the devolved Administration and are free of party political taint. As such, they stand in sharp contrast to all the other constitutional legislation that we have been debating in this House in recent weeks.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend talks about consultation. Does he know whether any research has been undertaken on the propensity of voters to go for the top name on the list? If so, does he know whether any thought been given to the fact that, with party names rather than individuals’ names appearing on the list, there will perhaps always be a tendency for a certain party to be at the top?

[Owen Smith]

I do not know whether there has been any research on that. I confess that I suspect that there has been none, and I doubt whether many of the provisions in either this order or, more importantly, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill have been adequately tested, as it has been rammed through with such unseemly haste.

As the Minister said, several of the reasonable amendments in the draft order are predicated on recommendations made by the Electoral Commission for Wales in its report on the conduct of the elections to the National Assembly in 2007—an election that was described in the commission’s document as having been

“alright on the night, but…by the skin of our teeth”.

The commission continued:

“The management of elections in Wales, with significant levels of postal voting, is a substantial exercise requiring strategic investment…project planning and risk management”.

There are lessons that we need to learn, and we need to ensure that the authorities in Wales—the Welsh Assembly Government and, I would suggest, Ministers—have learned those lessons.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend referred to how costly things could be. The funding given to local authorities for electoral registration officers is not ring-fenced, so what guarantee can he give—or, indeed, the Government of the day give—that this money will not only be ring-fenced, but be spent by local authorities on what it is supposed to be spent on?

[Owen Smith]

I am afraid that I cannot give those guarantees, but I hope that when the Minister responds, he will be able to give us further reassurances about that; I shall cover that point further in a moment. We are deeply worried that, with the combination poll and all the complications that will attend on that, this election has the prospect of being a very difficult one. I fear that we have probably not tested the possibilities or made provision for all the complications that could ensue.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister would be wise to listen to the professional election administrators in Wales, who have warned of the potential for huge voter confusion next year when we hold different types of elections on different franchises using different voting systems?

[Owen Smith]

Absolutely. That is an extremely important point, very well made. We have a significant problem ahead of us next May, with the combined poll. It is going to be complicated, and I fear that due consideration has not been given to our concerns.

I would therefore like to ask the Minister what dialogue he or the Secretary of State have had with the First Minister and other Welsh Assembly Ministers to satisfy themselves that the necessary planning and resources are now in place. The omission of any measures to address these concerns in the order, or in any related legislation, suggests that the Minister is wholly confident that, once again, it will be all right on the night. That is despite the fact that, as many Labour Members have pointed out, this time around, thanks to the disrespectful placing of the complicating referendum on AV on the same day, along with the cuts to the Assembly budget and consequently to local government budgets in Wales, there will be far more to handle at this poll and far fewer resources with which to do that.

We remember the chaos in many polling stations earlier this year, with people being ignominiously turned away from the polls. We also remember the chaos in Scotland in 2007, when more than 100,000 ballots were spoiled. Thankfully, Wales was exempt from both those instances, but is the Minister certain that there is no possibility of this happening in 2011 in Wales? He will know that it is much easier to destroy trust in the democratic process than it is to build it up. These ballots must go through without a hint of the problems that we have seen elsewhere. I can only assume that, in his response, he will be able to give us an absolute assurance that he is confident that the ballots will go off without a hitch

Notwithstanding the fact that we will not oppose the order tonight as its passage was not assumed in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, as was the case with the associated orders for Scotland and Northern Ireland, is it not instructive that we are debating it after that Bill, which will fundamentally undermine the Welsh elections, has already been hustled through this House? Is this not also illustrative of the high-handed party political approach that this Government have taken to dealing with all constitutional issues in recent weeks, given that such things are usually treated with far greater respect and given far more even-handed deliberation?

22:27

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I should like to comment on the point made by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). Plaid Cymru normally comes at the end of the list, following the British National party, the Conservatives, the Greens and everyone else. But, as the good book says, the first shall be last—[Interruption.] Or is it that the last shall be first? I say that as a Williams.

I am glad to be discussing these issues on the Floor of the House, although I am surprised that we are discussing them here, given that the order is of a technical nature, and that the more historic agreement to hold a referendum on transferring part 4 powers was held in Committee. The most important change in the order is that the names of regional list candidates will no longer be on the ballot paper. That makes sense, because it will make it clear that the electors are voting for parties rather than for individuals. Of course, some people might say that electors should have the right to know for whom they are voting, but the list vote is essentially done on a party basis.

Previously, there have been only four possible seats on the list and no party so far has won more than three regional seats, but some parties have taken the liberty of adding rows and rows of names to the ballots. My own party has adopted the sensible provision that we have only four candidates on the list. However, there was one party in South Wales Central that had 11 names on the list. I am not sure whether the number of votes that it received equalled the number of candidates.

Another change, which I welcome, is that election agents for regional elections will no longer need to have offices in the regional constituencies, but will be able to be based anywhere in Wales. That makes sense. I would expect the central party to be responsible for the administration, and that is a very positive change.

The changes in the order are essentially technical. It has been consulted on with major stakeholders and agreed to, and I am sure that we will agree to it again tonight. I look forward to an orderly election.

22:30

[Mr David Jones]

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) for what appeared to be a broad welcome for the order, although the welcome from the hon. Member for Pontypridd was somewhat well camouflaged. He asked whether a guarantee could be given that expenditure by local authorities would pass to electoral registration officers. The Welsh Assembly Government are responsible for that. In response to his request for an assurance that the process will run without a hitch, I remind him again that the professionals, namely the members of the Electoral Commission, have said that enough progress has been made to allow the elections and the referendum on 5 May to run smoothly. However, the Government will of course continue to work with the Welsh Assembly Government in the run-up to the elections to ensure that that happens.

The hon. Gentleman asked what consultation we had had with the First Minister and the Assembly. We have engaged in extensive consultation with both the Assembly and the First Minister, and the Presiding Officer of the Assembly has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stating:

“Constitutionally, I have no objection to the proposed UK AV referendum and the NAW general election coinciding. I am strongly in favour of voter convenience, and rationalisation of expenditure on polling arrangements.”

Question put and agreed to.

Business Without Debate

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

[Mr Speaker]

With the leave of the House, I propose that motions 7 to 12 should be taken together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Income Tax

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Belgium) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 15 September, be approved.

Capital Gains Tax

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Georgia) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 15 September, be approved.

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Cayman Islands) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 15 September, be approved.

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Federal Republic of Germany) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 15 September, be approved.

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Hong Kong) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 15 September, be approved.

Taxes

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Malaysia) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 15 September, be approved.—(Bill Wiggin.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 2 November, be approved.—(Bill Wiggin.)

Question agreed to.

National Security Strategy (Joint Committee)

Ordered,

That Mr James Arbuthnot, Mr Adrian Bailey, Margaret Beckett, Sir Alan Beith, Malcolm Bruce, Fabian Hamilton, Paul Murphy, Richard Ottaway, Mark Pritchard, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Keith Vaz and Mr Tim Yeo be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Mobility Scooters

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Bill Wiggin.)

22:33

[Mike Wood (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise important issues relating to the estimated 4 million adults in the country who have some form of mobility impairment. Given that figure, it is not surprising that there are some 300,000 mobility scooters in use here, and that the number is growing by up to 25,000 each year. They obviously provide an invaluable aid for those who are elderly and/or suffer from a disability, enabling them to maintain their independence and ensuring that they are less marginalised in our society than they would be otherwise. They are crucial in helping people suffering a disability and others to realise the rights to access that I think most people in our society accept should be a reality for all our citizens. After all, 15 years have gone by since the passing of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

This evening I want to explore some aspects of safety in the use of such mobility aids, specifically, but not wholly, in regard to the transporting of these vehicles and their users. I also intend to look at the treatment of mobility scooter users and at whether they are being afforded the protection under the law to which they are entitled.

The local authority that serves my constituency, Kirklees council, licenses 249 taxis, 55 of which are able to carry wheelchairs. There are a further 1,520 private hire vehicles, of which 120 are designated for wheelchair access. Unlike nearby Calderdale authority, Kirklees makes a distinction between wheelchairs and mobility scooters, but it seems evident that the two classes are becoming blurred and that scooters are on occasions being transported as if wheelchairs. It seems—largely, I accept, on anecdotal evidence—that sometimes this is happening without the user being relocated to a standard seat within the motor vehicle for the journey or the appliance being anchored adequately, if at all. The situation is no doubt complicated by those scooters that fit within the dimensions of the reference “wheelchair” as used in previous deliberations on this topic by the Department for Transport, but, for whatever reason, this appears to be a growing practice, at the discretion, obviously, of the driver and his employers. Indeed, the National Taxi Association accepted that there was a great deal of confusion about this matter in its evidence to the consultants MVA, which compiled research for the Department.

The NTA also accepted that it has no existing policy about scooters being transported and left it to the discretion of the driver, based, it said, on health and safety considerations. It appears to share the view of many in the trade that it is waiting for a lead from the Government. Perhaps the Minister will want to use this opportunity tonight to provide such a lead. [Interruption.] He shakes his head, and I am encouraged.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I nodded.

[Mike Wood]

I am sorry, it is late in the evening: the Minister nodded, of course.

In the meantime, perhaps tonight the Minister can supply us with the up-to-date figures for the number of wheelchair and scooter users injured while being transported. Whatever the figures are, perhaps he can tell us whether his Department is content for this high potential for accident to remain the case, and if not, what it intends to do to cure, or at least ameliorate, the problem.

I accept that the Minister has been in post for only a matter of months, but he will be aware that research commissioned by his Department in 2006 suggested there was the potential for 180 serious accidents a year involving vehicles transporting such users and their appliances and 16 fatalities. I should add that many scooter users, such as my constituent, Mr Lawrence Conlon, also feel that the loading into and out of any taxis is fraught with danger. In a letter to me, Mr Conlon said:

“I would invite the Minister or any of his officials to take a test and allow themselves to mount and dismount one of these vehicles in a wheelchair, either being pushed or guided on and then dismounted backwards on runners on many occasions not much wider than the wheels of the chair.”

That danger was also raised in the MVA research, which recommended that the Department institute trials so as to be in a better position to judge the danger itself. Can the Minister tell us if such trials have been undertaken in the four years since this report, and have the Government looked into the lack of uniformity in respect of anchoring points on the various appliances?

I realise—and I expect the Minister will tell me this—that the Department’s default position is that mobility scooters are not safe to be transported on public transport at all, not least taxis. But the situation in the country has moved beyond that point and we need the Government to act to help regulatory and licensing authorities make sense of the situation on the ground. At the very least, we have to be assured that all journeys involving such passengers are health and safety compliant and that the drivers are trained and aware of the safety needs of this group of passengers, not only while installed in the cab, but also at the point of their being loaded into or dismounted from the vehicle. Is it appropriate, as Mr Conlon suggests, to compare the process with the same procedures when they are carried out by ambulance service staff? If so, is the Department happy with the apparent disparity in safety levels between the two?

So far I have examined the potential problems relating to access to a vehicle and safety while someone is being carried. I wish now to discuss the issue of scooter users who have little access to a taxi; such access is apparently only at the whim of a licensing department and the local taxi owners. Lawrence Conlon, like his father before him, has given a lifetime of service to my local community. Now in his 80s, he uses a motorised wheelchair to maintain mobility, but rarely can a taxi be supplied to provide transport for him. The size of his wheelchair means that it cannot be loaded into a taxi unless that vehicle has a hydraulic facility, and not just ramps or runners. No such vehicle is licensed by my local authority, which tells me that it cannot require local taxi owners to provide such a facility in even one of their hundreds of cabs.

The Minister will recall that he confirmed to me in his letter of 7 October that section 160 of the Equality Act 2010 required taxis to be wheelchair accessible, but there remains no date for the enactment of this provision. May I press him to proceed with that enactment as speedily as possible and ensure that when the provision is enacted it takes on board the need to include scooters and motorised wheelchairs, as used by my constituent and, I suspect, many others, who are currently being discriminated against?

Finally, I wish to discuss a slightly different point relating to scooters. I have before me an Office of Fair Trading press release from a fortnight ago, in which the OFT announced its intention to launch a market study into mobility aids, including wheelchairs and scooters. It says that the sector was worth £500 million to UK companies in 2008. Apparently, however, the level of complaints from customers is growing at 20% a year and now tops 5,000 per annum.

I wish to outline to the Minister just such a complaint, as raised with me by my constituent, Mrs Crossland, a scooter user who earlier this year received an unsolicited visit from a firm called New Life Mobility Ltd of Kirkgate house, Shipley, West Yorkshire. It agreed with Mrs Crossland to replace two small scooters with a more highly powered one, and in total she has parted with £1,650, in addition to the two perfectly serviceable scooters that were taken in part exchange. Six months later she still has no scooter that she feels safe using. West Yorkshire trading standards department, which I have always found very effective, has been involved but is now at the point of advising her to go to law to recoup her cash. As she has spent her life savings on this venture, she is of course not in any position to do that. I know that trading standards officers have met two directors of that company, a Wayne Patrick Allen and a Jimmy Rodgers, but apparently none of the actions it was agreed that they would take to make good the problems they have caused Mrs Crossland have taken place. May I therefore ask the Minister whether he and his colleagues in government will introduce more robust provisions that afford protection for the likes of my constituent from those who seek to take advantage of their age and infirmity to rob them of both their life savings and their mobility? An OFT investigation might help provide industry solutions to the problems that mobility aids users face, but, again, I feel that we need a strong lead from Government.

22:44

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) on securing a debate on a matter that is clearly important and that is increasingly of interest to many people. He raises some germane and perfectly fair points that I will do my best to try to answer.

All the evidence suggests that the use of mobility vehicles is growing and that trend is likely to continue as our population ages. The Department for Transport continues to seek to improve access and safety for all people, including those who are disabled and elderly, to help enhance their quality of life. As part of that, we have been considering the issue of mobility scooters and their use.

There are three main areas of concern that the hon. Gentleman raised and I shall try to take each of them in turn. First, let me put on the record that there are concerns about the safe use of mobility scooters. There are occasional reports of people being injured by them when they are used on pavements and of users being hit by other vehicles when they are used on the road. My Department is considering all those issues with a view to balancing the mobility needs of disabled people with their own safety and that of others.

The hon. Gentleman asked specifically how many accidents had been caused. There are no national statistics on this matter, so I am unable to give him a figure, but I can tell him that from 2013 the police will be able to record whether a mobility vehicle has been involved in an accident. However, as the vehicles are used in public places other than roads and pavements it is unlikely that the database will provide a comprehensive picture. Other routes for data collection are being explored, but I hope that it is helpful that we are at least taking the matter forward. I recognise that there is an issue to be dealt with.

Let me turn to the question of the lack of provision to carry scooters in taxis and private hire vehicles, which overlaps with the point about health and safety. First, the legislation governing the accessibility of public transport does not cover the carriage of mobility scooters on public transport vehicles. Part 12 of the Equality Act 2010, which incorporates part 5 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, sets out the provisions for accessible public transport. I should point out that since mobility scooters are primarily designed for outdoor use by people who can walk only short distances, and therefore as an alternative to public transport, they are quite intentionally not covered by the provisions.

Regulations that have already been made under the provisions of the original DDA require space to be provided on buses, coaches and trains for a “reference wheelchair” but are silent on the carriage of mobility scooters, as they are in the case of taxis. Scooters continue to come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes and evidence suggests that some modern mobility scooters are in fact getting taller and heavier. As a result, many models are frankly unsuitable for carriage on many forms of public transport, including in taxis.

As for other transport vehicles, research has also shown that increasing numbers of the most popular mobility scooters on the market will now fit into the so-called “reference wheelchair” space. That has resulted in confusion as to whether they can be used on public transport since operators have adopted different policies for dealing with them. I want to ensure that we end that confusion. It has been done for wheelchairs, so we can do it for scooters.

I recognise the challenges that that presents since not only are there a large number of scooter models on the market, but the type of public transport vehicle also varies. Nevertheless, my Department is considering how we might adopt a more consistent approach on the general carriage of scooters on public transport.

On the specific point about taxis, one of the main concerns about the carriage of scooters in taxis is whether they can be safely secured, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his introductory comments. I cannot give him an answer tonight to his question about anchorage points, but I shall write to him after this debate and give him the information he seeks. On the MVA research, I can also tell him that no trials have taken place since that report was completed.

The issue about whether scooters can be safely secured is due to the design of scooters, which do not always have appropriate anchorage points. There is a danger that the scooter may tip up and cause injury. Guidance published by the former Disability Rights Commission advised users of mobility scooters that they should transfer into the standard vehicle seat and that, if possible, scooters should be carried in the boot of a vehicle, but, if they are carried inside the main body of the vehicle, they must be safely secured. We take the view that a driver would be entitled to refuse to carry a scooter that cannot be secured as it would constitute a serious safety hazard. It is for the driver or operator to decide whether to transport an unoccupied mobility scooter as an item of luggage.

The hon. Gentleman will be interested in a feasibility study commissioned by the Department for Transport in 2006, which considered whether scooters can be safely carried on public transport and made recommendations as to the types of scooters that could be carried, including their dimensions and weights. It suggested that smaller and lighter mobility scooters could be safely carried on public transport in the right circumstances. The study also identified a number of safety concerns, focusing particularly on the conditions for mobility devices on public transport vehicles. They included the securement and stability of the devices, laden weight and the lack of manoeuvrability.

The ability to access public transport vehicles was also highlighted as a safety issue. There was insufficient evidence to take a view on the safe use of mobility scooters in taxis, so this was left to the discretion of the operator. Some transport operators have already put in place arrangements to accommodate scooters and their experience may yield lessons for other operators. We hope so. I have asked my officials to discuss the carriage of scooters on public transport with interested parties, including transport operators, manufacturers, health authorities and users, and to come up with possible options as soon as possible in the new year.

I want my Department to explore whether some form of kitemark system could help users and operators alike to understand which scooters could be safely carried on public transport. I do not intend to impose any new regulations or burdens on operators, but the work will seek to identify, working alongside manufacturers and operators, which scooters currently on the market could fit into a reference wheelchair space. Some operators already publish acceptance criteria and I want my Department to explore whether a similar approach could be taken nationally. If that can be achieved it would be a good result for users who would then be rather more certain about whether scooters are likely to be accepted on public transport. That should, in turn, help to inform purchasing decisions. It would also help public transport operators, which currently have to deal with a bewildering array of models, some of which are suitable for carriage but many of which are not.

The hon. Gentleman asked about protection for scooter owners, particularly Mrs Crossland. When purchasing a scooter, it is important to get the model that will suit the purchaser and their circumstances best. We are aware that the Department of Health and the charitable organisation Motability have funded a database to enable people to choose a mobility scooter or wheelchair that meets their needs. As medical devices, mobility scooters will have to comply with regulations that give some protection to users regarding the technical safety of the vehicle and instructions for use. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which is an agency of the Department of Health, has responsibility for ensuring that this is the case.

Consumer protection legislation applies to mobility scooters as to any other products on the market. Those regulations are enforced by the Office of Fair Trading and local authority trading standards services through criminal prosecutions and civil enforcement orders. The hon. Gentleman might know that the OFT will be launching a market study into the mobility aids market. We have expressed an interest in this study, which will include wheelchairs and mobility scooters.

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on the actions of individual companies that have affected his constituent, but he has put his remarks on the record and I very much hope that the company concerned will respond sensibly to him and his constituent in the light of his comments. I hope the debate will help to bring about a satisfactory resolution to Mrs Crossland’s situation.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of taxis and wheelchair accessibility. Before long, I hope, we will announce our plans regarding the taxi sections of the Equality Act 2010 that have not yet commenced relating to wheelchair accessible vehicles. We have already taken preliminary action on driver training and we are also looking at the quota of taxis. We are giving local authorities incentives to increase the quota of wheelchair accessible taxis in their area, so we are already taking action to increase the number of such vehicles in local authority areas.

We recognise the important role scooters play in the lives of disabled people, giving them the freedom that enables them to continue to participate in everyday life, which we very much welcome. The increase in the number and use of mobility scooters, and the public interest in them, presents us with an opportune time to look again at the feasibility of the carriage of mobility devices on public transport. The hon. Gentleman is right to chivvy us along on that matter, and I am grateful that he has done so.

I have not been in office very long, nor have the Government, but in the past the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—DPTAC—has commented that it was concerned about the lack of co-ordinated information. DPTAC sought an interim measure and some formal guidance from the Department for Transport. We are doing what we can to take the matter forward, because I am concerned that the present arrangements have led to a plethora of different solutions that sometimes cause more problems than they solve. I am determined to try to sort that out.

Correct information is crucial, and we shall explore how best to make it available both to people who want to take scooters on public transport and to transport operators. In particular, we want to make sure that when someone buys a scooter they have clear information about whether the scooter is accessible for public transport. People are entitled to that information at the point of purchase.

Finally, it will be important to ensure that in our considerations we balance the needs of disabled people and their ability to maintain independence with the operating constraints of the transport industry.

Question put and agreed to.

22:55

House adjourned.

Westminster Hall

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 30 November 2010

[Mr David Crausby in the Chair]

Disability Allowance

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mr Duddridge.)

09:30

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

First, I declare an interest in the debate as the co-chair of the all-party group on learning disability. My main point concerns Government plans to remove the mobility component of the disability living allowance for disabled people who live in a residential establishment. To put that into context, it is important to establish which members of our society qualify for that benefit. The first, and by far the most common group, is where the claimant is unable—or virtually unable—to walk. The second group consists of people who are both blind and deaf. The third category comprises people with a severe mental impairment, and/or severe behavioural problems. In truth, we could not be discussing people who are more vulnerable or deserving in our communities. I understood that that was what the concept of community care was all about.

As far back as 1921, those who required it received help and support with mobility; a decade into the millennium, we are faced with confusion and fear about what the Government advocate. This House, and millions of people with disabilities, are entitled to expect clarity on the issue. Until today, that is exactly what we have not had.

I will give a few examples. On 10 November, my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions,

“what consultation he undertook with (a) charities, (b) third sector organisations and (c) other disability organisations prior to his decision to remove the mobility component of disability living allowance for those who live in residential care homes.”—[Official Report, 10 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 343W.]

On 16 November, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg) stated:

“The comprehensive spending review contained a proposal to cut the mobility element of the disability living allowance for those in residential care. Why did the Government make that decision—because it was fair or to reduce the fiscal deficit?”

The Chancellor replied:

“We sought to identify the savings that we thought were most justified. As far as I understand it—although I am happy to be corrected—the DLA changes have been supported by the Opposition.”—[Official Report, 16 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 740.]

I will attempt to resist the temptation to make political capital, and I apologise if I seem to be doing so. Point scoring is not what disabled people in my constituency want to hear. They want to know the facts and receive clarification on their position and future.

On 22 November, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy) said:

“Of all the proposals on welfare reform, this is absolutely the most brutal and cruel…What will the Minister do when she has to meet a disabled person in one of those homes face to face, and how will she explain why she is taking away their much-needed lifeline to the outside world?”—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 6.]

It is important to remember that that lifeline gives disabled people access to a freedom pass, a blue badge or a disabled person’s railcard, as well as to the Motability scheme and other important items.

[Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I declare an interest because my constituency contains one of the good Leonard Cheshire homes, which I visited on Saturday. I tabled six questions yesterday, which the Minister will probably be able to see tomorrow. They cover the same kind of ground. Is it not right—rather, is it not accurate but wrong—that someone who currently receives the higher element of mobility allowance and who goes on two journeys, perhaps with the home’s van at a perfectly reasonable cost of 60p per mile, will have exhausted the lower limit and will not be able to make any further journeys? The Government must find a way to ensure that the mobility allowance is still available to those who need and use it. Through the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) I invite the Minister to visit one of the Leonard Cheshire homes and speak to those who are affected.

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw asked how people would react, particularly if faced by the Minister. At the weekend, I took his advice and travelled around as many residential homes in my constituency as the heavy snow permitted. I can reliably inform the Chamber that people in residential homes are terrified about the removal of the mobility component of their DLA, and they have urged me to make the strongest representations on their behalf. I have no doubt that the same is true for other hon. Members from all parties.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this enormously important debate. On the point about impact, will this move not hit all the harder because we are talking about some of the most vulnerable people, many of whom are on very low incomes? It will remove a substantial portion of their real disposable income. How can anybody possibly justify that?

[Mr Clarke]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and speaks with the authority of a proactive constituency MP and as a former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Further supporting my allegation of a lack of clarity, an interesting question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South on 22 November. I do not go over these questions just for the sake of repetition. She asked:

“Will the Minister take this opportunity to clarify exactly who will lose the mobility element of their DLA?...Will there be exemptions, or will everyone in residential care lose the mobility element of their DLA?”—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 6.]

As we would expect, Front-Bench Opposition spokespeople have tried to clear up Government ambiguity. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) asked whether the Government can guarantee

“that there will be ‘no losers’ as a result of this policy?”—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 7.]

There has been far too much obfuscation on the issue. It is too important a matter for vulnerable people to be left in the dark about how they will be affected. I genuinely thought that the days of “out of sight, out of mind” were long since past.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this valuable debate. I also declare an interest because there are a number of residential homes in my constituency. Last week I met with some residents, and there is major concern about the loss of the mobility allowance. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if that component is removed, despite what we hear from the coalition Government about giving independence to people who are disabled, such a measure will effectively make people prisoners in their residential homes? The lifeline that they have wanted and have had for a long time will be taken away.

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Like other hon. Members, I have received a huge amount of correspondence making the point that he just raised.

In order to seek clarity, I will turn to the question put to the Prime Minister last Wednesday by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). He asked:

“How can he possibly justify this cruel cut of either £18.95 per week or £49.85 per week to some of the most decent people who have paid their taxes all their lives?”—[Official Report, 24 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 264-265.]

To my complete dismay, the Prime Minister chose to trivialise his response. I say that because I had expected him to show greater sensitivity towards people with disabilities. In fact, he served as an office-bearer in the all-party group on learning disability and his input then was regarded as positive and welcome. I hope that the Prime Minister will think again.

In any event, the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), put the Opposition’s position beyond doubt when he said following Prime Minister’s questions:

“The Prime Minister, after a word in his ear from his Chancellor, got it flat wrong today.

He was asked about his own government’s plans to cut mobility support for people in care homes but confused it with separate reforms…But when the Chancellor went back in his Spending Review and scrapped mobility support for people in care homes, we are clear that goes too far and is a punitive measure that could leave people in care homes more isolated.”

That clarifies the Opposition’s position on the matter, but my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East may want to add to it; I shall welcome what she has to say later. It is in complete contrast to what the coalition has said. We are calling for clarity.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making some good points, but on the issue of clarity, will he help those of us who are perhaps not as learned as him on this topic? Is there an underlying issue that different amounts of the mobility allowance go to people who are disabled based on their route into the care home? Will he provide clarity on that?

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Gentleman will know that there are benefits at the moment—we all hope that they will continue—for people who live in care homes, as there are for people who live in their own homes. There are two approaches to the matter. I think that that is the answer that he seeks.

On the question of clarification, the coalition has been unclear and ambiguous, which is one of the reasons why I called for the debate. I genuinely hope that by the end of our discussions today, the Minister will have left us in no doubt that people with disabilities will not be left isolated, as so many fear, because they live in a residential home.

What has caused the current uproar—there is certainly uproar in my constituency—among people with disabilities and disability organisations? Many have been in touch with me as their Member of Parliament, and I am sure that other hon. Members have shared the same experience. I think that the uproar is based on two things. The first is the Government’s proposal as we understand it so far. The Treasury estimates that 58,000 people who live in care homes will be affected by what is an outrageous decision. What would the cuts mean in reality to individual people?

Patricia King drew my attention to the case of Doug Paulley, a 32-year-old wheelchair user and campaigner for disability rights. Doug was diagnosed 14 years ago with a degenerative neurological disorder and now lives in a residential home in Yorkshire with 17 others aged 20 and above. Already they are allowed to keep a personal allowance of only £22.30 from their benefits, or £20 from any earnings, with the rest going to offset the cost of their local authority care. Those sums cannot provide or cover clothes, phone bills, stationery, personal items and so much more. Their only other income is the mobility element of up to nearly £48 a week, which Doug described as a “quality of life-saver”. That is a disabled person speaking for himself and others.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there appears to be a lack of appreciation of the number of people who would be affected by a cut in this budget if that were to come about? In Northern Ireland, it is 10% of the population—about 182,000 people. In my constituency, the proportion is higher—about 12%, or 16,000 people. There appears to be a lack of recognition that this is not about people who are fraudulent or feckless or who fear work, but about people who are incapacitated and cannot work and therefore must be supported.

[Mr Clarke]

Again, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He will know far better than I do what is happening in Northern Ireland, but one of the persons whom I quoted earlier comes from the Province and I know that there are very severe difficulties there, too.

So what are we saying as we ask these questions, seek more information and express the views that we know disabled people living in residential care and their carers hold? We are simply saying this. While disabled people who live at home are to keep the mobility component of their benefits, and that is as it should be, it cannot be right, it cannot be fair and it certainly cannot be equitable for 58,000 disabled people in residential care to be hammered with a 69% cut in overall benefits.

Let us hear what care homes themselves are saying. The chief executive of Norwood, a fairly large, third sector provider for people with learning disabilities, wrote this to me:

“I am delighted that you are able to draw this matter to the House’s attention as it is certainly an issue that appears to have been so far unclearly presented. We provide residential Care Homes for 250 people whose needs are profound or complex in nature…they therefore require additional support for their daily requirements.

The mobility component of the DLA is given only to those people whose mobility is severely impaired. As such it enables them to access day opportunities, shops, leisure pursuits, holidays (often requiring special transport), all things that more able-bodied people take for granted.

To remove this allowance would be extremely regressive.

Surely the solution is straightforward…the mobility component remains to ensure that the people who need it are not penalised. LAs”—

local authorities—are

“instructed never to include this in their fees and the mobility component remains intact.”

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend rightly highlights the need sometimes for special transport for people who are in receipt of this component. Does he agree that they have very considerable difficulty accessing mainstream transport, which may be ill equipped to meet their needs and which may also mean that they encounter hostile public and staff attitudes, and that therefore it is particularly important that they can fund transport that does adequately meet their requirements?

[Mr Clarke]

Transport is vital to the quality of life of the vast majority of disabled people, but particularly those living in residential care. My hon. Friend makes her point very well.

I come now to the views of organisations of and for disabled people. It must be well known to right hon. and hon. Members that they have been virtually unanimous in their response. For example, Scope says:

“Disabled people are particularly vulnerable to cuts in services and benefits. They are disproportionately reliant on health, social care, housing and transport services, and also, as a result of low employment rates and the additional costs associated with living with an impairment, more likely to live in poverty and/or rely on benefits for a large proportion of their incomes.”

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

Given the extent and the nature of my right hon. Friend’s campaigning on behalf of disabled people over almost three decades in this House, when he speaks it is always sensible for Governments to listen. On his point about Scope, I remind him of the information it has given to Members on the kinds of activities that will be put at risk by the loss of the mobility component. They include access to work and volunteering; access to friends and family; community activities, health care services and leisure activities, such as swimming, shopping and even going to the cinema; and the ability to maintain relationships with a partner. How does my right hon. Friend imagine that any Government could justify this savage cut?

[Mr Clarke]

My hon. Friend, who has added substantially to the quality of debate in the House on these matters, asks the kind of question that people are asking, including, I am sure, people in his constituency. I know that he will always tell it like it is.

I was dealing with organisations of and for disabled people, and so I turn to Mencap:

“Mencap believes the government have misunderstood how disabled people use this important benefit. Without this vital lifeline, many disabled people in care will lose much of their independence, be unable to take part in many community activities and have fewer opportunities to meet with friends and family. Mencap is concerned that by removing this benefit many disabled people who live in residential care…will be unable to lead fulfilling and independent lives.”

Sense says:

“The Government’s initial justification for this decision, was that the situation of people in residential care homes is the same as those in hospital. This is a totally incorrect assessment; residential care settings are individuals’ homes and they should expect to be able to access their families and local communities. Yet Sense’s experience as a provider of residential services to deafblind people is that in the vast majority of cases, local authorities will take the DLA mobility component into account when deciding on funding levels.”

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that, when local authority budgets and the voluntary sector organisations that provide transport services for disabled people are under pressure, this is the worst possible time for the mobility component of the DLA to be withdrawn? Doing so will increase the institutionalisation and isolation of disabled people, instead of promoting their integration and inclusion in communities.

[Mr Clarke]

If I may say so, that is an excellent point. The plain and simple fact is that we all know in our hearts that our local authorities are under tremendous pressure. We know that they are facing cuts and difficult decisions, and unfortunately, in too many cases the result is that provision of social services and disability care does not always get the priority needed and required. There is not a shred of evidence from the local government organisations in England—or no doubt from Northern Ireland, and certainly none from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—that local authorities will be in a position to pick up the bill if the Government remove the money from those living in residential care. We are facing a crisis, both for local government and for disabled people.

Finally, there are many relevant organisations to which I could refer, and I apologise to those I have not mentioned this morning due to time constraints. I want to end with Parkinson’s UK:

“The Government compares this decision with the removal of the mobility component from hospital inpatients. But the two situations are very different. Hospital stays tend to be relatively short, and patients are often not in a position to make good use of the benefit. By contrast, many people live long and active lives in residential care homes.”

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the issue is about not only the elderly, but young people who could be facing their whole lives in residential care? In my constituency, 25-year-old Katherine, who lives in the local Leonard Cheshire home, is devastated that she will be unable to go to the cinema or have outings with her parents and so on. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to recognise that this is not like hospital short stays at all?

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point extremely well. All the evidence of which I am aware supports precisely what he has to say.

I am acutely aware that this week marks the 40th anniversary of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970—the first legislation of its kind. I am much more comfortable and at ease with the vision outlined by my then colleague, Labour MP Alf Morris, than with the menu of cuts advocated by this coalition Government. Forty years ago, we reached out to people who were marginalised by their disability. As Alf Morris said:

“I would choose a society in which there is genuine compassion for the very sick and the disabled; where understanding is unostentatious and sincere; where needs come before means; where, if years cannot be added to the lives of the chronically sick, at least life can be added to their years; where the mobility of disabled people is restricted only by the bounds of technical progress and discovery, and where no person has cause to be ill at ease because of their disability.”—[Official Report, 5 December 1969; Vol. 792, c. 1863.]

I agree wholeheartedly with Alf, and I plead with the Government to think again.

09:49

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

May I begin by apologising that I will have to leave soon to attend a Select Committee sitting? I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) on his thoughtful speech and on securing the debate. Although we might not agree on everything, I understand his intentions.

I want to start by acknowledging the need for welfare reform, which is one of the single most important things that the Government are doing. I know that many Opposition Members, such as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), have wanted to reform welfare during the past 13 years. Like me, they will welcome the fact that the Government are committed to a universal credit.

Many of my constituents will welcome this chance to escape the poverty trap. However, on the specific issue of the mobility element of disability allowance, many constituents have contacted me with genuine family concerns. Only a small number are affected but, as has been noted, they are deeply anxious, and they do not have a political axe to grind. I have already spoken to the Minister about this and written to her about specific cases in my constituency. Ms Jacqueline Hobbs is concerned about the low residual income that will be left for people in care homes. Mr Kevin McGrath is worried that the cut will apply also to younger adults, who prize their independence and need mobility services to have a decent quality of life. Ms Jean Plumridge is anxious that disabled people must not become prisoners in their own homes, but must retain access to the outside world.

It is important to be clear about what the new Government are proposing. They inherited the largest deficit in our peacetime history, and we now spend £120 million a day on debt interest alone. In June, as part of the emergency Budget, the Government announced that they would save £11 billion a year from welfare spending by 2014-15.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

As the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about debt, will he tell us how people in residential homes who have taken out loans to buy electric wheelchairs to use outside will repay that debt? What do the Government have to say to them?

[Robert Halfon]

If the hon. Lady is patient, she will hear the answer later in my remarks.

To preserve spending on other front-line services, the Government then announced that they would have to go even further in tackling the extremely large welfare bill. One way in which they are doing that is by ending the mobility component of DLA from 2012-13 to claimants who have been in a residential care home for more than 28 days, which will affect about 58,000 claimants. The Treasury says that that will save £60 million in 2012 and that the figure will rise to £135 million by the end of the Parliament. I appreciate, however, that the Government have confirmed that affected residents will retain an underlying entitlement to the benefit, and that payments will start again if they leave the care home. I also understand that the measure will not be introduced until October 2012. Local authorities will have a legal obligation to provide mobility services for residents from their social care funding.

[Dr Whiteford]

I come back to the point that I made to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke): local authorities face the same squeeze in their budgets as everybody else. I know from my constituency that there are some great voluntary services supporting wheelchair users and people with severe mobility problems who live in care homes or in their own homes, but who do not have access to transport. However, those charities are terribly strapped financially because of a lack of giving and the problems with trust funds. There is nothing to pick up the slack. Why should disabled people be on the front line? Why should they be punished for financial mistakes that were not of their making?

[Robert Halfon]

I thank the hon. Lady, but I do not agree that all care homes would be unable to afford to provide mobility equipment if there was a statutory requirement. I have a further response to what she says, but I will come to it later.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the hon. Gentleman not realise the extent of the problem? There are 42 care homes in my constituency. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) indicated, this issue affects a massive population of elderly and young people. In my case, we are talking about hundreds of people. Every one of those care homes without exception has written to me about this issue—this is massive.

[Robert Halfon]

I am here today because I accept that this is a serious problem. Opposition Members do not have a monopoly on compassion; I care just as much about disabled people as they do.

Let me explain what I want to happen and what I believe should happen. Local authorities will have a legal obligation to provide mobility services for residents from their social funding. That funding will increasingly be distributed in the form of personal budgets, giving disabled people more choice and control over their services, including access to mobility equipment, taxis or scooters, if that suits them. That will end the anomaly whereby two state-funded residents with similar needs who are placed in the same care home can be treated differently according to whether they are funded through the NHS or the local authority.

I welcome the fact that the Government are waiting until 2012 to introduce this change, because it is important to give local authorities enough time. They will need safely to translate people on to personal budgets and to get those budgets up and running on a mass scale. Despite the welcome introduction of personal budgets in 2007, progress in rolling them out was simply too slow.

[Kate Green]

One difficulty that many of my constituents face is that they are in residential care outside the borough because there are insufficient places in the borough, which means that their transport costs are higher. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about stretching personal budgets far enough to meet those costs?

[Robert Halfon]

In some ways, I agree with the hon. Lady. The whole point of my argument is that we need to extend the personal budgets.

As was mentioned, the Audit Commission recently highlighted the fact that although some local authorities were on course to offer 30% of eligible people a personal budget by April 2011, most were not, and only six out of 152 councils are currently on track. What is more, a 2010 survey showed that only 6% of total spending on adult social care was allocated to personal budgets. That is a disappointing record, given the huge potential of personal budgets to give disabled people more independence.

My central concern is that we must help the 58,000 claimants I mentioned to access personal budgets before the mobility element of DLA is withdrawn. On that basis, I have a few questions for the Minister. Will she reassure hon. Members that the Government will seek to migrate those 58,000 claimants to personal budgets before 2012? Will she set out how the statutory requirement for local authorities to provide mobility services will work in practice? Finally, will she reassure my constituents that disabled people will continue to be supported so that they can keep their independence and mobility?

In conclusion, many people in Harlow are concerned for their families. They do not have a political axe to grind, but they are genuinely anxious about the future. As someone with a disability, I know that any change, or any threat of change, can cause immense anxiety, even if the outcome is not as drastic as expected. The problem with the changes that have been proposed is that decent people are worried. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure hon. Members and my constituents that disabled people and their families will not suffer as a result of these reforms.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. I will come to the winding-up speeches at 10.40 am, so I would appreciate it if Members kept their contributions short, because several wish to speak.

09:59

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) on securing the debate, because there is clearly considerable interest and concern right across the House.

I know that several Members would like to speak, and my right hon. Friend has eloquently presented many of the points that I would have raised, so I will highlight just three issues. First, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that disability living allowance is intended to meet social and participation needs, not to provide support for medical needs. That underpins the reason why so many of us in the debate are so concerned about its removal from people in residential care. To some degree, such people are already isolated from the community because they are in special and slightly artificial circumstances, and many of them are acutely aware of that special isolation. The mobility component of disability living allowance enables people to leave that residential setting from time to time for leisure or social purposes, to be with their families and, in some cases, for employment and educational purposes, so it is a precious aspect of their social participation rights.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

My hon. Friend brings enormous expertise to the debate. One point that has not been mentioned so far is that entitlement to DLA is a trigger for accessing the Motability scheme. As she says, contact with the community is enormously important, and some of the people we are talking about have jobs. Will people not risk losing the cars that they get through the Motability scheme? Is that not awful?

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that. I am also grateful to a number of disability organisations, including RADAR, the Royal National Institute of Blind People and Leonard Cheshire Disability, for highlighting the fact that individuals need to be in receipt of DLA for three years to access the Motability scheme. As my right hon. Friend says, there is a very real risk.

Fundamentally, we are talking about a threat to the independence of people in residential care settings. That threat arises because the costs and inconvenience of leaving those settings are greater for such people than they are for those who do not need the mobility component of DLA. The mobility component helps those in a residential setting to go beyond the basic level of transportation—for instance, when attending medical appointments. It enables full participation.

I hope that a full impact analysis of the proposals will be directed specifically to social and participation needs. I would welcome such an undertaking from the Minister.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

To what extent does the hon. Lady believe that local authority care contracts should take account of the needs that she mentions? She makes a precise distinction between medical needs and wider social needs, but all Members here today would agree that those needs are equally important. To what extent should local authority care contracts take account of them?

[Kate Green]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, which builds on one raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford).

Although local authorities might be expected to make full provision within their care packages, many will not—or may not be able to afford do to so because of inadequate funding. We also have anomalies in the system between those in residential care who pay for themselves, those with places in residential care that are funded fully or partly by the local authority, and residential care that is funded by the NHS. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill said, we need certainty and consistency of treatment, and we need adequacy of funding. Given the stretch on local authority budgets and the cuts they face, it is not clear whether disabled people in residential settings can be fully assured of equality of treatment.

I turn to the question of how disabled people will feel as a result of the proposal. It has the potential to threaten their dignity and cause considerable humiliation and hurt. I repeat something said to me by Mrs Khan, a constituent, who is the mother of a profoundly disabled young adult in residential care. She asks, “How will our son come home to see his family, as we will not have a vehicle to bring him home? What happens to his human rights?” She says, “Because he is disabled, is he not important?” That is the impact of this decision on her. Although I am confident that it is not the Minister’s intention to cause such hurt or humiliation, there is a real sense of not being seen as worth while. In the context of the big society, many disabled people feel they are now considered not worthy, not necessarily part of it.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent contribution to the debate, particularly on the question of employment, which had not been mentioned before. Does she agree that many of those in residential settings who are in receipt of the benefit have the most complex needs, and transport may be more important to them than it is to others? Although the Government want to challenge spending across the entire area, they may need to revisit this because those most in need will be affected simply because of where they live.

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We are talking about some of the most vulnerable and excluded people, and they have particularly high levels of need and face a higher risk of poverty—not least because of the additional costs often incurred by them and their families in order to cope with living with a disability.

There is a clear sense among my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I suspect more widely in the House, that this group is small but highly vulnerable and we ought to be offering them extra protection, rather than stripping it away. I urge the Minister to reconsider this policy, particularly in the light of the helpful comments offered on the cost of benefit; £135 million is not a substantial sum in the context of £18 billion of benefits cuts.

I alluded earlier to disabled people’s sense that their dignity and their rights are under attack. Will the Minister tell us what consideration has been given to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, particularly article 20? Regarding disabled children—in that respect, I had a helpful briefing from the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign—what attention has been given to the UN convention on the rights of the child? That convention specifically requires the UK, as a signatory, to ensure that children can access play, leisure, cultural and artistic facilities. What discussions has the Minister had with her counterparts in the Department for Education to ensure that such provisions can be kept in place?

There is widespread concern that the policy should be reconsidered. Most important, however, the voices of disabled people and their families must be heard. I ask the Minister to explain more fully how that consultation will take place. I hope that the significant and genuine concerns of disabled people and their families will be responded to, and that the policy will be reversed.

10:13

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

I start my short contribution by making a confession. This is the first time in nearly 28 years as a Member of the House that I have made a speech in a debate on disability. That was not because of a lack of interest—far from it. However, this entire area of policy has always struck me as something of a secret garden—moreover, one with its own jargon and terminology. My experience is that if we use the wrong phrases or the wrong words, others, including people from NGOs and concerned charities, are likely to shout at us. As a result, I am never quite sure whether I am meant to refer to disabled people or people with a disability.

Listening to oral questions to the Department for Work and Pensions in the House last week, I again felt somewhat lost in this secret garden. I am genuinely interested in the matter, not only as a constituency Member but as the co-chair of the all-party group on carers. I was reassured to hear that even the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg), whom I believe chairs the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, was not sure exactly who would be affected by the Government’s proposals. She observed that there was quite a lot on the blogosphere about who might or might not be affected by the changes.

My first request is that Ministers should set out clearly what is being proposed and who is likely to be affected. I am not confident that I am right, but after listening to the answers given by my hon. Friend the Minister at oral questions last week, I understand that it is primarily about people being supported and funded in residential care homes by local authorities. It is a consequence of the move towards personalisation of care—enabling people to have a much greater say over their own care packages, which by common consent is wanted by almost every disabled person. My hon. Friend highlighted the fact that the Department of Health has put £2 billion into social care. Am I right in assuming that a proportion of that money is intended to be used by local authorities, to ensure that residents in care homes continue to have a measure of mobility?

As the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) observed, the Treasury spending review of 20 October mentions on page 28 the intention to save £135 million, but I am unclear from whom that money has been taken or from where. Is it intended that the money should be replaced by the funding that the Department of Health has put into social care?

My hon. Friend the Minister said in the House that

“Local authorities, working with care homes, have a clear duty to promote, where practical, independence, participation and community involvement for every single disabled person living in such care homes.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 6.]

Is that a statutory right? How do disabled people ensure that it is delivered? If it is not being delivered by the local authority, is the matter subject to judicial review? I am unclear as to whether something is actually being taken away, or whether the activities are expected to be funded through a different and separate funding route.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Peter Bottomley), I have an excellent Leonard Cheshire care home in my constituency. Agnes Court in Banbury is home for a number of seriously disabled residents. Many of them, like those mentioned by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), have been there for many years. Indeed, I have known some of them as constituents for practically the whole of my time as a Member of Parliament, as they have lived almost all of their adult lives at Agnes Court. The mobility component of the DLA has enabled the residents of Agnes Court and other constituents to access such things as electric wheelchairs; it has funded visits to local GPs or doctors; and, most important, it has funded visits and activities away from Agnes Court.

These constituents, like us, clearly want to live their lives to the full. Is this money now being taken away from them? If so, how will such activities be funded in the future? My hon. Friend the Minister asserts that local authority contracts with care homes should cover services to meet all residents’ assessed needs, including any assessed mobility needs, and that an individual’s care, support and mobility needs should be met by residential care providers from social care funding. If that is what she is saying, I hope she will write to the chief executive of every local authority setting out exactly what the Government expect them to do.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

I thank my fellow Oxfordshire MP for giving way; I know that he cares about these issues. I urge him and his colleagues to reflect on the perversity of these proposals. Even if local authorities, under instruction from the Minister, are able to put together some package of support for transport for people in residential care homes, which seems rather doubtful given all the financial pressures that they face, does it not go completely in the opposite direction from the whole philosophy of personalised care, which is that a person has a package appropriate to their needs and they can choose how to exercise it? They may choose to spend the mobility component of DLA on special transport—electric wheelchairs or access to Motability and so on. Will they not have less independence and choice, even if this money is replaced through the local authority route?

[Tony Baldry]

The right hon. Gentleman and I are both Members for Oxford constituencies. Having been a Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, he is a more frequent visitor to this policy secret garden than I am. I am trying to understand whether something is being taken away here. If it is, is it being replaced by something else? If it is, and if the expectation is that local government should be funding it, then that needs to be set out very clearly. The test for all of this is that when each one of us, as a constituency Member of Parliament, meets a constituent who is affected by these changes, we need to be confident that we can explain what is being proposed. I make no criticism of anyone at the moment—the Chairman of the Select Committee cannot even work it out. I am not confident at the moment that I know the answers. If the Government are proposing changes, it does not seem unreasonable to expect those to be set out clearly and unambiguously in terms that everyone can fully understand.

[Gavin Barwell]

rose—

[Tony Baldry]

I will not give way again, because many colleagues wish to take part in what is a comparatively short debate.

As this issue clearly involves at least three Government Departments—the Departments for Work and Pensions, for Communities and Local Government, and of Health—it would be immensely helpful, particularly for those of us who are professedly not experts in disability and welfare policy and legislation, if my hon. Friend the Minister clearly set out what role each of those three Departments plays in ensuring that the correct level of support to disabled people is being delivered locally and appropriately to meet individual needs. Everyone will agree that disabled people have different needs, and as far as humanly possible we need to have care personalised for each one of them. That also means there must be clarity regarding who is responsible for doing what.

10:24

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Yet again, we have an example of how not to do welfare reform—if indeed that is the intent. The Government have attempted to pray in aid the fact that the Opposition had said that they were willing to consider reforming DLA. However, I thought that that meant looking at the benefit in the round, examining how it operates, and assessing what needs to change and what can be done better. I did not think that it was about picking out one brick without looking at the way in which the whole benefit operates. From my perspective—and, I am certain, that of my whole party—that was what we meant when we suggested that we were open to considering changes in DLA.

We are considering something that was clearly proposed as a saving—or a cut. It is about reaching that £18 billion figure, which was why it was announced in the comprehensive spending review rather than as a part of welfare reform. Having decided to do that—ex post facto—all sorts of things are then presented as to why it might be done, why something could be done better and why there may be money somewhere else.

A similar thing happened during the proceedings of the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Public Bill Committee, of which I was a member. Having decided to make a series of reductions, a number of reasons were suddenly conjured out of the air, and then a whole host of ideas was proposed to find the money to make up for some of the cuts, but those ideas were not costed or fully thought through. The Government were not even able to say whether those proposals would cost more than the savings that were being suggested.

As someone who comes from Scotland, I want to know what consultation has gone on with the Scottish Government. What consultation has been carried out with local authorities in Scotland? I can assure the Minister that, over the past three years, my local authority has already seen substantial reductions in the money going into social care. I have several constituents whose direct payments, which they were receiving from the local authority, have been cut substantially. In some cases, “substantially” means halved. Such cuts have largely come about because of the financial constraints under which the council has found itself. Yes, the cuts have been dressed up in terms of my constituents’ personal needs, but as their needs and capacities have not changed at all, it is clear that this is really about making savings. I am not confident that my local authority has the resource to put this in as a substitute for removing DLA when it is already making so many cuts, and that is before the even further reductions in local authority spending that are coming our way in Scotland and elsewhere.

Moreover, it is important to consult. The Government should not make a decision and then wait for people to react. I heard the Secretary of State for Health talking on Radio 4 this morning about the importance of consultation over public health matters. He was discussing whether to implement the regulation on tobacco and the display of tobacco. He said that it was very important to consult, but if it is so important to consult even on something that has already been passed and subjected to consultation, why is it not important properly to consult the users, care homes, local authorities and the devolved Administrations that are all involved in this change? If it was then felt that there was a need to consider the way in which the benefit is provided and that was better for it to come down the local authority route, so be it, but I do not think that that is why we have got to this position.

[Dr Whiteford]

The mobility component of the DLA is one of the few parts of the benefit system to which personalisation already applies. Does the hon. Lady not agree that the Government’s proposals will take away that aspect of the personalisation agenda at the very time they are talking about promoting it?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I certainly agree and, as I have said, I have seen some of that personalised agenda being placed at risk in other ways over recent months, which is a substantial concern, especially to the recipients of this component.

I think that we have an opportunity to look again at the proposal and to get it right, if it is genuinely thought to be necessary to fund this scheme differently. However, if it is being seriously suggested that this change can be made—it involves a substantial sum for an individual, but the collective cost of any substitution will be very substantial for a local authority—and if the Government will ensure that it is made, I would ask whether there is a costing of how much will be involved in monitoring the change, in checking that it is made and in managing that whole process, when in fact the system appears to be working well.

10:30

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I intend to be very brief because I know that other Members still wish to speak.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) on securing the debate. I think that all Members of Parliament will have had contact with our constituents on this issue. People are very concerned about what the consequences of this change will be, and he was absolutely right to remind us that the people affected by the change are those constituents to whom we have a special obligation, given their position in society.

On the other side of the coin, I have a great deal of sympathy for my hon. Friend the Minister and for Government Ministers in general, because they are having to take some incredibly difficult decisions at the moment. I have been a Member of the House only since 6 May. During the last six months, I have had to support a number of decisions that, in an ideal world, I would not have wished to support. I think that if the tables were turned, as it were, and Opposition Members found themselves in the position of being in government, they would probably have to take decisions that they would not ideally want to take.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Not this one.

[Gavin Barwell]

I will come on to that exact point about this decision.

As a Government Back Bencher, I ask myself a question when I look at each of these issues as they emerge: is there a justification for the decision that is being made? I think that the Government have a case. As I understand it, it is that there is a degree of double-counting in respect of this money and that, legally, local authority care contracts should provide the resources to meet people’s needs—and not only their medical needs but their social and emotional needs, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) referred to earlier. The money to meet those needs is also being provided via the mobility component of the DLA. I do not think that a case can be made that residential homes are analogous to hospital care, and the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill made that point very powerfully in his speech.

However, I have two caveats. The first is that if one takes the view that this support is at least nominally being provided in both ways that I cited, it would be better to strip out the local authority support mechanism. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) made the point that the mobility component of DLA meets the need for personalisation of funding. However, I guess that it would have been much more difficult to identify the exact level of spending by local authorities on meeting those needs and what savings could be made on local authority contracts if we were to say that the mobility needs of people with disabilities were to be met through DLA.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

The issue is that this element of funding is not always duplicated. My constituents have expressed concern that there is great confusion because they are told that there is a duplication, but that is not the case for them. Given that the sums involved are so critical to the quality of life of the individuals affected, it is a great concern when that argument about duplication does not match their reality.

[Gavin Barwell]

My hon. Friend leads me very nimbly on to the second point that I wish to make. We cannot say that everybody is in the same situation. Opposition Members have made points about the pressure on local authority budgets. Indeed, my own local authority has seen a real-terms cut in funding during the last five years. At that time, to be fair, the Labour Government were providing extra resource to local government in aggregate, but because of the perversities of the grant system, my council experienced something like a 3% real-terms cut over the last five years. There is real pressure on local authority budgets.

I wish to conclude by posing a question to the Minister. If the Government go ahead with this measure, and if we accept that there is at least a degree of double-counting at the moment, what guarantee do my constituents have that if the mobility component of DLA is removed and the local authority care contracts do not meet their needs, they will have some recourse? What can they do to ensure that their legitimate needs—I think that all hon. Members would agree that these people have such needs—are met?

10:34

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Like other Members, I will keep my remarks short, given the time pressure.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) on securing this important debate on an issue that affects many people and that worries many more people. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) referred to the observation of the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, that a lot of concerns were being expressed in the blogosphere about this issue. However, I do not think that the hon. Lady was reflecting any confusion on her part; she was reflecting the scale of the fear and concern among many people who will be affected by the change.

People are worried about who is affected by these cuts and where the cuts will extend. The proposal is currently that the cut will affect people who are local authority-funded, or who are deemed to be local authority-funded, in residential care, but not self-funders. However, people will inevitably then say, “How does the logic of that stack up? Will self-funders be targeted too, because how can you justify some people in a residential care setting getting this benefit just because they are self-funded when other people do not get it?”

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that this cut—nasty and horrible as it is—affects about 60,000 people, but that the mobility allowance goes much wider than that? Is this the start of something much bigger, whereby the mobility allowance is removed altogether?

[Mark Durkan]

I think that many people have that concern, precisely because of the confused arguments that are now coming from the Government to justify the cut. Even in this debate, several hon. Members have suggested that this is just switching from one channel of support to another. Some hon. Members seemed to be suggesting that it might not even be a cut at all. We were told that the change was justified on the basis of the need to cut the deficit and because there had to be a cut in the welfare bill, but now we are being told that it might not be a cut at all and that the money might reach people by different means. However, does anyone seriously believe that the money that already reaches people in a highly personal and highly effective way, and that is well justified by the needs of those people, will be replaced or replicated by personalised budgets coming through hard-pressed local authorities? No, it will not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) asked what consultation there had been with the devolved authorities. I know that Alex Attwood, the Social Development Minister in Northern Ireland, who runs the Department that covers the social security agency, has made it very clear that he cannot pretend—to himself or anybody else—that if this cut is imposed, it will be made good by the health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland and the sort of packages of personalised budgeting that they would be able to deliver, because those trusts are already under severe pressure after going through years of efficiency saving and because they face yet more again.

There is no point in people trying to delude themselves, or anybody else, by pretending that this is not really a cut at all. Some of the arguments almost amount to a sort of “let them eat cake” answer, Some suggest that there might be something better for people than what is in place already, but people know what they use the allowance for. They use it to ensure that they are able to get accessible taxis, to continue to run their Motability car, or so they can fund powered wheelchairs to get them about in their life and to keep them connected with their family, neighbourhood, and the voluntary groups and support efforts in which they are involved. Many people in residential care homes who receive the allowance use it not just for themselves. Many of them deliver messages, collect library books or do other things for those who are in the care settings with them.

I ask the Government to think again about this cut. In the minds of the people who are making this cut, I am at a loss to understand whether it is justified by context, because of the urgency of tackling the deficit, as we are told; whether it is a convenience cut, simply because the people affected seem to be a handy group of people to get and those who are making the cut have made the mistake of thinking that they are the equivalent of people who are in hospital; or whether it is a conviction cut. Are people somehow genuinely scandalised that people in residential care settings are able to have a modicum of decency, independence and choice for themselves by virtue of this allowance? We are still getting confused and inconsistent answers from the Government, so I hope that the Minister will clarify the situation.

10:38

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to be here to respond to this debate. Of course I want to begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke)—I think that I have got the geography right there, but I am very bad at geography so please forgive me if I make mistakes along the way—for securing this debate. I have been in this particular “garden” for many years, as has my right hon. Friend, and I know very well his work on disability. He is an outstanding figure in that field. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) said, when he speaks he commands respect, and I counsel the Government to listen to him.

Of course this has been a very important debate on a vital issue. It has been said that, at first glance, this change appears to affect only a very small number of people. However, as my hon. Friend from Northern Ireland, if I may say that—

[Ian Paisley]

North Antrim.

[Margaret Curran]

Thank you. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) has said, actually this measure has an impact on thousands of lives and it could radically alter thousands of lives. He put it well. However, although £135 million is a huge amount of money, it none the less represents a small percentage of the cuts being proposed by this Government.

As we have heard, there are concerns about the impact of the cut. We have heard dramatic examples of how real-life circumstances have been altered. I have observed in the past few months that the issue has energised many in the disability, voluntary and charitable sector who are deeply concerned. To quote Mencap:

“Without this vital lifeline, many disabled people in care will lose much of their independence, be unable to take part in many community activities they enjoy and have fewer opportunities to meet with friends and family.”

Fear of the cuts’ implications has become widespread and has now captured a wider audience for this debate.

I should make my party’s position clear, although it has been mentioned. Labour supports welfare reform; I quote the Government as saying that they are continuing our work of welfare reform. However, we cannot support these crude cuts. They are ill thought out and, as has been said, they go against the central principle of personalised support for disabled people by actively undermining their empowerment to choose how they live their lives.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely ridiculous to expect local authorities to fill the gap? Will buses run around care homes? Will people be stuck on buses for hours, waiting to be dropped off? How far in advance will they have to book their transport? The issue is about independence and choice, and the cuts will adversely affect some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

[Margaret Curran]

I will come to that central argument of the Government’s, as we must address it head-on, but I will do so later in my comments if that is okay. I am grateful to have this opportunity to correct on the record the view put forward by the Prime Minister about Labour’s position on the issue, because it is important to clarify it.

I repeat that Labour does not support the cut proposed by this Government; the Prime Minister implied that it did. Perhaps I am not as honourable as my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, but I am obliged to say that it is not the first time that the Prime Minister has made a mistake after listening to a whisper from the Chancellor. I think that that explains what happened last week. It is deeply troubling that the Government are about to cut a vital lifeline affecting about 60,000 people living in residential care. They will be £2,500 worse off as a result, and the Prime Minister is not being exactly clear about the details of the proposal, which is of concern.

The issue of double funding lies at the heart of the Government’s case; we have been told that that is their argument. The logic seems to be that transport costs are currently funded by local authorities and therefore should not be funded again by Government. However, as many charities have rightly pointed out, local authorities’ assessments of care needs cover only what they consider core or essential needs. They do not always cover aspects of an individual’s life and social interactions, so social trips such as those to friends and family are unlikely to be included within the current service arrangements.

Furthermore, if that is funded already, why is there so little mention of it in existing community care plans? Surely we should be able to track and identify such funding. If it is funded already, why do so many people use their mobility payments to buy scooters, to take children out of residential homes at weekends and to use adapted taxis to go to the shops? Why do they pool payments to buy or lease an adapted car? Those services are important. The change represents a cut.

We are also told that the £2 billion that the Government are investing in social care could provide the resources to make up that loss. Some hon. Members have argued that the Government should be made to make up the loss. However, the claim of an extra £2 billion for social care has been rejected by the Conservative-led Local Government Association in England, which warns of a 4% increase in the need for social care in coming years and expects that even with the most optimistic efficiency savings, the shortfall will be at least £4 billion by the end of the comprehensive spending review. Even with the so-called extra £2 billion, there will still be a shortfall of £2 billion. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) said, local authorities cannot reasonably be expected to make up that extra gap.

There is no guarantee that the money will be effective in meeting existing demands, let alone in filling future gaps. I know that some people have said that the Minister should direct local authorities to make up the gap, but that runs completely counter to the decision not to ring-fence. If services are not ring-fenced, the Government cannot direct what they should do.

The Government’s approach, I argue with great sincerity, does not address the fundamental issues. How will it address the individual difficulties cited in this debate? It will fall on local authorities to find the resources to replace what the mobility component pays for, but the argument is that local authorities already fund the mobility component. Does the Minister think that it is realistic or likely that local authorities, which are set to lose one third of their funding, will step in to provide those essential services? I repeat the question I asked her last week at the Dispatch Box: do the Government believe, and can they guarantee, that there will be no losers as a result of the policy?

This has been an important and good debate. I call on the Government to listen to the strength of feeling involved and the range of issues selected. I note a degree of sympathy on the coalition Benches with the argument made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. This is an opportunity for the Government to think again.

In my kinder moments, I honestly think the Government have made a mistake and that the plan was dreamt up by some young spark in the Treasury who had a quick look at the tables and thought, “There’s a quick saving. It looks as if it’s already double-funded.” However, they were not in the secret garden and did not think through the consequences. At worst, it is a callous cut for which the Government will be held to account for many years if they proceed without thinking it through. I leave it to the Minister to tell us which is true.

As it stands, it is a crude, cruel cut that undermines moves towards personalisation, the Minister’s own efforts at welfare reform, quality of life and opportunity. For such a small saving, it will have an enormous impact on the quality of life of the people in greatest need. It cannot be accepted. This is the anniversary of the passage of legislation empowering disabled people, and Friday is the international day of disabled people throughout the world. I call on the Government to take this opportunity to show solidarity with disabled people and announce that they will not proceed with the cuts.

10:47

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I thank all hon. Members for coming to this debate and for taking the time to voice their concerns and their constituents’ thoughts about the measure. In particular, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) on securing this debate. At the beginning of his remarks, he called for clarity, which is exactly what the measure is designed to address and deliver. I hope that he will be able to see that in my comments.

We as a Government owe a duty to disabled people to promote their independence and equality, but we also owe a duty to the country to ensure that we have the right governance in place to deliver support efficiently and sensibly. The problem is that we inherited a system that some might say is not fit for purpose. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) called for a full reassessment, not piecemeal reform, of disability living allowance. I reassure her that that is exactly what we are doing, and I hope that we will have her support when we introduce our full measures in the coming months.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I want to make it clear that our support depends, obviously, on the contents of those measures. This policy appears to be a piecemeal measure.

[Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I can say to her that we will shortly be consulting in full on this and other measures on disability living allowance. Hon. Members, their constituents and interested parties will have a full opportunity to give their thoughts and see the measures that we are introducing.

Across the spectrum of disability living allowance, we see overlaps, duplication and gaps in provision created by a series of opaque, confusing and inefficient systems. The debate has highlighted just how out of kilter the current system is, with different payment streams and delivery mechanisms spanning different lines of departmental responsibility. We have to address the underlying issues, which is why we are proposing major disability living allowance reform. That is the only way we can ensure that the clarity we need is put in place.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I am still a little unsure about when the reform will take effect—2012 has been mentioned. Would the Minister clarify exactly when the measure will be introduced and perhaps give some further information on other measures that will affect disability living allowance?

[Maria Miller]

As the Chancellor has set out, the measure is due to come into place in October 2012, and others will come into place in a similar time frame. It is important to focus on time because, as hon. Members have said, that will give us the opportunity to work across the Departments affected by the measure to ensure that good provisions are put in place and delivered effectively.

We remain fully in support of the principles of DLA as a non-means-tested cash benefit contributing to the extra costs incurred by disabled people. However, we must ensure that the benefit reflects the real needs of disabled people today and their aspirations for greater control in the future and that the system is sustainable in the long term. As the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) will know from her colleagues who were in government, more than 3 million people currently receive DLA and the expenditure this year is forecast to be £12 billion, which is substantially more than was intended when the allowance was introduced.

[Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD)]

The Government are trying to make savings in that budget, but has the Department considered maintaining support for at least the most vulnerable, for example by keeping the higher rate mobility allowance for those living in care homes, as they have the highest costs and the greatest need for mobility support?

[Maria Miller]

We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the independence of disabled people living in care homes is maintained, and that is our prime responsibility. I will give more details on how we intend to do that later, but I am conscious of the fact that other Members have raised points and that I should make progress in answering them.

At a time when we are spending £120 million a day in interest payment on the debt we inherited from the previous Government, the unbridled expansion of DLA is unsustainable. We need to be certain that public money is focused where it can have the most impact in an affordable manner, helping people to lead independent lives. That is why we propose an objective assessment, which we are developing with the help of medical experts and disabled people.

[Margaret Curran]

I appreciate that time is short and so thank the Minister for giving way. Would she address the issue at hand? The debate is not about the general reform of DLA, but about the specific cut. We should focus on that, as there are many answers that people are looking for.

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady must understand, as her hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East has said, that the measure has to be seen in the context of the wider reform of DLA, so I will outline a little more on that. The reform of DLA will allow us to ensure that we accurately and consistently assess people’s support needs and reassess those receiving the allowance as their needs change over time, which is also currently lacking. We believe that that is crucial. As a result of the reforms, we believe that we can focus resources where they are most needed.

I will now address the specific measure on the mobility element of DLA. We believe that the mobility element plays an important part in helping disabled people lead more independent and autonomous lives, an ambition with which I am sure all Members agree. However, that element also includes duplication and overlap, which is why we have set out to tackle the disparity as part of the spending review. At present, some people in residential care receive DLA cash directly for their mobility needs, and at the same time they receive varying levels of mobility support at local level from care services, funded by their local authority. That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) in her contribution. In some cases care homes provide excellent mobility support, but in others there is only basic provision, which means that some people receive cash support for services and others do not.

[Mark Durkan]

The Minister referred to the confusion and overlap that the measure is intended to remedy, but what representations have been received about that? Who has made the case that there are chronic difficulties and that all sorts of confusion are seizing people with worry and bewilderment?

[Maria Miller]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that it is the role of the Government to ensure that systems are clear and straightforward, and he will also know from his constituents who are disabled that the push towards personalisation is something that disabled people feel strongly about. Unless we have clear budgets and budget lines, it is difficult for that to happen. I hope that he will understand that it is incumbent on the Government to be able to deal with that.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Maria Miller]

Hon. Members must forgive me, but I want to address more of the issues that have been raised directly, and there have been many contributions throughout the debate.

The arrangements are further confused by different funding streams, as Members have pointed out. For example, NHS-funded individuals in residential care do not receive the DLA mobility component, while those funded by local authorities do. If we want to be fair—not only to disabled people, but to taxpayers—we have to tackle the gaps and overlaps and ensure that everyone gets access to the mobility they need, without the taxpayer having to pay again for needs that have already been met. In the current fiscal climate, that is exactly what Members would expect the Government to do.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady must forgive me, but I have taken a number of interventions already.

We simply cannot continue to accept that lack of clarity. We currently have mismatched systems for assessing the needs of disabled people: one for DLA, which assesses mobility and need in terms of cash; and another that provides, via local authorities, a more generic needs assessment reflected in services contracted with care homes. Those mismatched systems produce huge potential for duplication, uneven expectations and varying provision. We have to change that and target the right funding on the right people.

I will answer some of the direct issues that Members have raised. There has been a broad question on what consultation there has been with the Scottish Government and Scottish local authorities. I would like to reassure Members that the forthcoming DLA reform consultation document and the legislative process will allow disabled people and other affected groups ample opportunity to provide their views on the measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Peter Bottomley), who has had to leave the debate to attend a meeting, made several important points. I would be happy to meet representatives from Leonard Cheshire homes to discuss the matter further.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) made an important contribution to the debate and asked a number of specific questions. He, too, has had to leave, to attend a Select Committee meeting. I can clarify that the measure was designed to remove overlaps in the payment of mobility support, as I have outlined. It is not intended to lead to a loss of independence and we remain committed to promoting greater personalisation for disabled people. I reiterate that milestones have been agreed with the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, including the growth in personal budgets, and that we are absolutely committed to the implementation of personalisation across the board.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) talked about the ability of people living in residential care homes to get into work. I would like to be clear that the ability of individuals in care homes to take advantage of access to work, which can cover their travel costs, makes an enormous difference to them. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston talked about DLA being paid for social and medical needs. To be absolutely clear on that point, we will shortly be consulting on the wider reform of DLA and are absolutely committed to a social model for it, not a medical model. She mentioned article 20 of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which sets out the right to personal mobility and promotes the greatest possible independence. The Government’s measure is designed not to reduce the mobility of disabled people, but to address the current complexities in the system.

Shoreline Management Plans

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Westminster Hall

11:01

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate on an important issue. I wish that more of my colleagues were here today. I am new to Suffolk Coastal, which is the only constituency with the word “coast” in its name—and as may be imagined, the debate subject is one of the biggest issues there—but I am not new to coastal erosion. I grew up as a little girl in a place called Formby, which is also well known for its shifting sands. I recognise that I am very new to Suffolk, and I commend the work done thus far to protect the coast. I pay tribute in particular to my predecessor, the recently ennobled Lord Deben.

I want to raise awareness of the issue of shoreline management plans and invite Members of Parliament to consider joining the all-party coastal and marine group, which decided to include the plans among our particular issues. I am slightly thrown, because I expected the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) to be here, and was therefore about to pay tribute to him. However, I am sure that the Minister of State will pass on to him the gratitude that is still felt in my community for the fact that within only a few months of joining the Government, he came to Norfolk and Suffolk constituencies. That was very well received.

I also want to say well done to the many councillors and Government agencies that have worked hard to produce the shoreline management plans. Although I do not agree with every word that is in the plans, on the whole those responsible have done a great job—constrained by the policy visited on us by the previous Government. The shoreline management plans were driven by the policy in “Making Space for Water”. I recognise that what led to that was severe flooding across the country. However, in my view, much of what went into “Making Space for Water” and subsequent reviews, such as the Pitt review, had nothing to do with coastline management; it was trying to deal with flooding. That is typical of much of the approach that has been taken to flooding and erosion.

Flooding is temporary. It is very disruptive to people; I recognise that. There have been some severe incidents; but it is not terminal, whereas erosion is. Once shoreline is gone, it is generally gone for good. There might be a little movement of sediment up and down the coast; but, as to houses, there is a village in my constituency, Covehithe, that is not expected to exist in 40 years’ time. That is quite an impact for the people who live there.

I shall not compare our situation with that of Holland. I do not pretend to be Canute or to think that we can change nature. However, perhaps I may make use of an analogy with our neighbours across the North sea, who have made their country bigger by reclaiming land from the sea. Their shoreline is roughly the length of that of Essex. Yet they manage to spend €1.5 billion a year on their shoreline defences, and to supply on average about 9 million cubic metres of beach recharge, as opposed to the 2 million enjoyed across the UK. As an aside—although there is no conclusive evidence on this—I understand that Holland does not allow aggregate dredging within 10 miles of its shoreline, and, indeed, that it buys aggregate from the United Kingdom.

To return to “Making Space for Water”, I am not going to get into the debate about rising sea levels and similar issues; that is not the purpose of this debate. However, what is relevant is the fact that the plans are now effectively based on 25, 50 and 100-year decisions. We are making 100-year decisions on the basis, to some extent, of a three-year budget. I am not surprised that the consequence is a disproportionate impact on communities that are not densely populated. I should prefer a rethink on “Making Space for Water”. I do not suggest it should be complete and fundamental or that we should turn back the clock in every respect. However, I suggest that instead of making 100-year decisions we should continue with what was the tradition in this country until fairly recently, and make decisions for 25, 30 or 40 years, so that one generation can pass on the challenge to the next, but also do its bit for that generation; and so that one generation will not take decisions that leaves nothing for future generations. That is what is happening in places. I am thinking of places such as Happisburgh, in North Norfolk, as well as parts of my constituency, where people know that their village will not exist in 40 years and there is nothing they can do about it.

Among various things that have happened, more and more powers have been given to the Environment Agency. I understand that the strategic aspect of that was to try to put responsibility in one area and take an integrated approach. With the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 there has been strengthening of the regional flood defence committees. I am concerned that those committees cover a large area. That almost goes against the mantra of the big society and the idea of enabling local communities to take decisions, which of course should mean working with neighbours but should not mean being told, from the regional perspective, “This is what you can and cannot do; this is what we can and will not fund.”

I want to spend a little time focusing on my area of Suffolk. Shoreline management plan 1 was published in 1998 and it continued the “hold the line” philosophy that we should do what we can to preserve the coast. Shoreline management plan 2, which has still not, to the best of my understanding, been signed off by the Secretary of State, contains a significant change, in that properties will be lost. The Under-Secretary came to my constituency and met people who will be affected. I wanted him to meet such people—Mrs Flick, Mr Chandler and Mr Monson —and see the tears in their eyes because of the effect of the policies.

In my maiden speech I mentioned Thorpeness, where something happened that is supposed to be a one in 50 or one in 100-year event—I cannot remember which; within 50 days of the passing of the plan at local council level, a significant loss of beach was suffered. It does not give residents much confidence when there has been a downgrade to no active intervention, and something that seemed far off happens. I pay tribute to the council and the Environment Agency for pulling together and doing some remedial work. It required the financial intervention of constituents, who have put in money. Not all my constituents are particularly cash rich, but they have done that to try to protect their homes for another 30 years. That relates to the policy I mentioned earlier.

Another aspect of the shoreline management plan that is relevant to my constituency is the suggested breach just south of Aldeburgh, moving into the estuary. When the shoreline management plan was initially being made, there was a separation between it and the estuary management plan. I am pleased that there was recognition from the council and the Environment Agency that that was wrong, and such matters cannot be considered in isolation. Under the Alde and Ore futures initiative, work is now being done to examine the impact of breaches of the shoreline among wider areas of the estuary. There were reports yesterday on the BBC that if there were a “one in 100” big North sea storm, Cambridge would be a coastal town. That is the impact suggested by some of the modelling, which I do not decry; but the impacts of smaller storms could wipe out many properties in my constituency, and much agricultural land and habitat.

Two councillors have brought to my attention their concern about the consultation process. I am not clear on this, so I do not speak with complete authority, but my impression from meeting residents is that those who are not on the electoral roll, discouraged because they were second home owners, may not have participated fully in the shoreline management plan. Indeed, some residents have said that they had never heard of it until the impact was known. That is a cause for concern: people whose houses would be lost as a result of the shoreline management plan did not know about it. That needs to be reflected upon, and I hope the Minister and the Secretary of State will consider that when they sign off the plans.

The impact on people and on agriculture is real. One concern about the funding formulas, when we start looking at the cost of coastal defences along different parts of the shoreline, is that issues such as heritage assets and agriculture have not been taken account of in a valid way. I understand that Suffolk produces a great many potatoes for our country, and I am sure they are delicious and are enjoyed by many hon. Members. One of the features of our agriculture, however, is that we have two or three seasons of potatoes, and some of that could easily be lost if there was a breach of the shoreline and subsequently the estuary.

The previous Government looked at ways of mitigating and carrying out managed retreat, using schemes such as the pathfinder grants. Constituents feel that although that was jolly nice, it was a waste of time. More hope is coming from the community right-to-build proposals brought in by the Minister for Housing and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps). Instead of people being told that they have to move to a town, they are now working with councils to get planning permission to go into other areas. Frankly, if they live on the edge of the coast they do not want to live in a town; they are living in an isolated rural hamlet. Some moves have been made on that, but I am not sure that pathfinder money has been spent in the best way. I have been told on several occasions, “We would rather have used this £1.5 million grant actually to put some defences in, rather than being told we will lose our homes.”

In terms of compensation, more and more awareness exists about the human rights impact of the decisions that are made about the change in policy no longer to hold the line. Those who will be impacted by High Speed 2 will receive compensation for the fact that their houses will be moved as a result of a change in or an introduction of Government policy. That does not happen in coastal erosion, where we have decided not to hold the line. I believe, although I am not certain, that those who suffer from fluvial flooding also receive compensation. In Happisburgh there were schemes looking at giving people 40 to 50% of the value of their homes. Frankly, trying to rebuild a home sometimes costs more than that, and trying to buy elsewhere can easily cost more than that. That needs to be looked at. I recognise that traditionally, compensation has not been a feature of coastal erosion policy, but we have not been putting in black and white as effective policy, “You are going to lose your home, and we are not going to compensate you for anything.” I understand that compensation is available for landowners where land has been deliberately allowed to flood, but that is limited to agricultural situations.

Returning to the idea of not trying to be Canute, this country does not have billions of pounds to put a ring of steel or a ring of stone around our shorelines, and that would not necessarily be best for our coast. The Minister has heard from some of my constituents the can-do attitudes they can bring to decisions on how to fund future defences—in particular, the initiative with Suffolk Coastal district council and landowners around the Bawdsey area. Gerry Matthews engineered a scheme whereby exceptional planning permission was given to build some houses on greenfield land. The money from that paid for defences around the Bawdsey area. That has been welcomed, and it was pioneering at the time. Although some of my constituents are concerned that that will mean we will pay for our coastal defences for ever, at least we have been given the choice to do so. In this day and age, it is about making choices for ourselves and not simply expecting the Government to write a blank cheque, especially in these difficult times. Other schemes could be possible up and down our coast.

One aspect that we must get right is that the partners of Natural England and the Environment Agency should not have the sole judgment over whether defences can be done. At the moment the EA and Natural England have some quite restrictive powers, and they can say “No, you cannot put those hard defences in.” It is hard to argue with a constituent who says they are happy to pay for defences or to arrange some match funding, and who is subsequently told that they cannot do so. That has led to some extreme reactions in parts of my constituency: frankly, dumping a whole load of rubble on the beach is not ideal either, and I would not recommend that as a course of action. There are, however, situations where landowners desperately need to be able to maintain their defences. They should be able to enhance their defences if they need to. I recognise the importance of the various directives we have signed up to on habitat, but people are still more important than fossils or certain kinds of birds. If there ever was a case for the Human Rights Act, that is one: humans have a right to live and to defend their homes.

Moves are afoot in the Ministry, and I want to recognise those. The consultation is out now for the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy. We have heard about future funding, the draft guidance is out for consultation and people are working together—the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association, with DEFRA, Natural England and the Environment Agency—to look at protocols on the subject. I call on the Government to consider that, as I have said, coastal erosion is terminal and we are not reclaiming anything; flooding is temporary. Please bear that in mind when we are looking at the different schemes and at allowing people to make the big society a reality, not just hot air. We must encourage the Environment Agency and Natural England to work with the people on our coastal shorelines to recognise that they can do things. It is not about damaging the future; a lot of the land around the coastal shorelines and slightly inland has been held in families for generations. They do not want to destroy such places; they want to enhance them and to keep them, not only for their descendants but for the enjoyment of many people across the country.

Councillor Sue Allen from Southwold has written to me making the point that we had set aside £1.6 billion for the habitat creation programme, and in writing off Benacre Broad, Covehithe, Tinkers Marsh, Delacroix Marsh, Hen Reedbeds, Reydon Marsh, Dunwich Marsh and Minsmere aspects, 950 hectares of land has to be recreated. The habitat has to be recreated elsewhere, and the estimated cost is £50 million. That sum could produce a significant number of defences in that area. I do not see that as a Ponzi scheme, but I want to encourage Ministers who say, “We are not going to spend money on it from this pot, but we will spend money from that pot” to think about that. That does not make sense to me, and we need to have a rethink.

This is one of the most important issues in my constituency. It does not affect everybody there, but there is a recognition that our coast is important to us. We do not want to see too many more towns such as Dunwich, which can appear more interesting under the sea than they are on shore. I encourage DEFRA to look, as I believe it is doing, at innovative and different ways of protecting the coast—methods such as artificial barriers and artificial reefs, looking at constituents’ ideas for defending their own shorelines, or thinking again about some aspects of the consultation—so that people in areas that have moved to no active intervention, and who, in their view, were not made aware of that, are allowed a second chance to express views to their local councils.

I give credit to the Government agencies, councillors and others who have worked very hard on shoreline management plans within the constraints of “Making Space for Water”. I hope, though, that the Government reconsider the issue fundamentally and recognise that 100-year decisions being made today have impacts on people in the shorter term, not just 100 years hence.

11:20

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) for raising a very important issue. Coastal erosion is a key issue in my part of the country. My constituents in Devon have one of the most beautiful but also one of the longest and most prone to erosion bits of coastline in the country. In addition, we have a particular problem, because the south-west is tipping along an axis, so it will sink, while the north-east, happily for it, rises. Consequently, coastal erosion is an acute problem for us. By 2050, our sea level is predicted to rise by 22.9 cm, which is a significant amount.

Shoreline management plans are a vital tool in managing the problem. I am delighted that following their inauguration in the mid-1990s, they continue to be in existence, and shoreline management plan 2 is in prospect. My request to my hon. Friend the Minister is that we try to build some certainty and begin to secure some agreement because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal said, those plans have not yet been agreed. There was much debate about them before the election, then they were shelved, but now we have a new Administration.

We need certainty, because the plans have significant implications for our national plan for flood defences and for the renegotiation with the insurance industry—with the Association of British Insurers—about how we deal with covering the risk to those properties that are prone to flooding. We also need certainty locally so that local authorities can plan sensibly on where to build and where not to build. I am conscious that the arrangement that the previous Government made with the ABI, which in effect said that insurance would continue to be available provided that the Government continued to invest in flood defences, does not apply, as I understand it, to houses built after 2009, so this is quite an important issue to get right.

For my local area, tourism is the biggest generator of income, and it would be profoundly affected if we did not properly manage erosion along that beautiful coastline. Our shoreline management plan is part of the Dorset and south Devon plan. Within those many miles of beautiful coastal mileage, there are three particular areas of concern, which I shall highlight for the Minister so that he can understand why I am concerned about the need to reach agreement. At the moment, agreement is looking a little tenuous, and we need it.

Let me start with the easiest of the three areas. The Dawlish sea wall is crucial, because a railway line runs along that coast, and without the integrity of the sea wall, the railway line could not continue to run trains. The railway line carries 2 million passengers a year, and I can honestly say to the Minister that it is crucial to tourists travelling to and from the area, as well as to local constituents travelling to and from work. I am pleased to say that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), confirmed in a previous Adjournment debate that that railway line was crucial and that therefore he would write—he has indeed written—to the Environment Agency and to Network Rail to indicate that retaining the defences to ensure that coastal erosion was kept to a minimum was what the Government wanted. That is great. I am pleased that we have a hold-the-line policy for the next 100 years there.

Let me move on to the other two areas, which are a little more controversial. Dawlish Warren is a beautiful sand spit and home to a thriving tourism industry. We have 800,000 visitors a year, and on a good day we might get 20,000 visitors in a single day. It is also a nature reserve, a conservation area and a place of great scientific interest. That is more problematic, and the area suffered significantly in 2004 when the level of the beach fell dramatically; about 10 metres of the beach was taken away. We have a hold-the-line policy until 2025, but after that the policy is mixed between hold the line and a managed realignment.

Because of the nature of the tourism industry, this issue is crucial for my constituents. The Environment Agency has been helpful, and to date it has maintained the groynes and supported the gabion defences. In the relatively recent past, it spent £100,000, which was good news. There is, however, a debate between Natural England and the Environment Agency about whether the defences to be put in place should be soft or hard defences. Clearly, there are arguments on both sides, but we need clarity so that we can move forward. I urge the Minister to remember that this is a key area for tourism, and without that tourism it will be hard for local businesses and people in Dawlish Warren to survive.

Another area of concern is the Exe estuary. A study of the area found—rightly—that we should be looking to implement a new wetland area. Because of the erosion, the wetland has been lost, which will have implications for our natural wildlife. However, the consequences of such an action will require a causeway to be created in the area so that the train can continue to pass along the coast. The challenge is who will pay for that work—should it be Network Rail or the Environment Agency? I ask the Minister for his input in trying to ensure that we reach a sensible agreement.

In essence, it is crucial that shoreline management plans are agreed. Without them, we will never ensure that a proper flood defence plan is put in place across the country, and we will never help local authorities plan properly for housing—a particular issue with coastal erosion. Furthermore, we will never have a sensible and meaningful debate with the ABI, and others, about how to cover insurance for properties after 2013 when the current arrangements fall away. Locally, I am passionate about securing the future of the railway and of tourism.

That, in a nutshell, is my contribution, but as a final comment, I welcome the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal that we review the issue of compensation. It seems appropriate for compensation to be considered in cases of coastal erosion, as well as with other forms of flooding and disaster. I also commend my hon. Friend on her proposal for local people to be more involved in discussions about such matters, rather than leaving it to large Government agencies.

11:29

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on securing the debate? She is a formidable ally on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and she is also a strong champion for her constituency. A lot of the issues that she has raised directly affect my constituents, but that is unsurprising since we share the same shoreline management plan.

I represent a rural area of Essex with a long coastline. It will come as a surprise to many people to hear that my area of Essex has one of the longest coastlines in the country. However, that will not come as a surprise to the Minister, who is an extremely distinguished former chairman of the Essex National Farmers Union, so I am pleased that he is responding to the debate. Many of my concerns relate to the protection of agricultural land, and he will understand why coastline management is such an important issue, particularly in my part of the world.

We in Essex are conscious of the fact that shoreline management is extremely important. Many people still remember 1953, when more than 100 people died in Essex as a result of the last major tidal surge and the collapse of sea defences. A map on the Environment Agency website, which is available to anyone who wishes to consult it, shows the extent of the floodplain in my area. It shows that 2,000 houses in Heybridge, in my constituency, would be under water following a one-in-200-year event. It also shows a large amount of agricultural land on the Dengie peninsula, which I represent, being lost to the sea, which is a real concern.

The Environment Agency rightly concentrates on protecting residential dwellings and human life, and that must be the priority. However, there is concern that agricultural land may not get the attention that it deserves. We realise, of course, that the country is under pressure. We have steadily rising sea levels on the east coast, a tilting land mass and the erosion of salt marshes, which constantly increases the pressure on our defences. We are also very much aware of economic considerations.

I do not therefore in any way dispute the necessity of drawing up a shoreline management plan to determine where we should concentrate resources and to work out a sensible strategy for each part of the coastline. Indeed, I was at the meeting at which the plan was first unveiled, and it came as a relief to some extent that it was less drastic—certainly in the first epoch—than we had feared. Nevertheless, in areas where there are proposals to realign the coastline and to give up agricultural land, farmers find it difficult to come to terms with what is happening, particularly at a time when we are increasingly worried about our food security and the need to maintain and increase agricultural production.

What has caused greater concern, however—my hon. Friend rightly touched on this—is the feeling that the plans were drawn up without any proper consultation of affected landowners. There have been public meetings and opportunities for people to come along and look at the proposals, but there has been a lack of moves directly to involve the people who will be affected to give them an opportunity to make representations, to question some of the criteria that have been used or to appeal.

Indeed, there is still a debate about how the plans have been drawn up. There is no agreement, for instance, on matters such as the economic value of the land that would potentially be abandoned or the cost of repairing sea walls. The whole cost-benefit analysis is slightly shrouded in mystery. There have been questions, for instance, over whether sufficient regard has been given to mobile homes and caravan parks, which are obviously not permanent residential dwellings. Those are all issues on which more needs to be done.

I and other Members in Essex have been contacted by the Managing Coastal Change group in Essex and by Andrew St Joseph, who is a former constituent, although he is none the less still a good adviser on these issues, and I suspect that his name will be familiar to the Minister as well. They have raised concerns both about the fact that landowners have not really had a chance to discuss these issues and about the Environment Agency’s assurances in the plan. For instance, the Environment Agency said that it had spoken to everyone who owns land in the areas where managed realignment is proposed, but Mr St Joseph points out that a number of landowners had told him that they had had no meaningful contact with the Environment Agency at all about that. When I went to the unveiling of the shoreline management plan, which was attended by landowners from my constituency and the rest of Essex, one of the farmers came up to me and said that on the wall he had seen for the first time that a large part of his farm had been designated for future realignment and loss to the sea. Clearly, that is a matter of concern. There needs to be greater dialogue between landowners and the Environment Agency.

There is an even greater concern about the lack of dialogue with Natural England, which my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal also touched on. There is concern that it has a very powerful influence over the decisions being taken. My hon. Friend referred to some of the frustrations about the extent of protection for wildlife as opposed to human beings. There certainly appears to be greater protection for the habitat of a water vole than there does for that of a human being, which is difficult for people to understand. I am not one to say that the habitat of water voles is not important—it plainly is—but these things need to be kept in perspective. There is a general feeling that the habitats directive is driving this policy too much and that some decisions are being taken in large part to meet the requirements of the directive rather than as a result of proper consideration of the costs and benefits of maintaining sea defences.

Although I get some reassurance about the large amount of sea wall designated as “hold the line”, the truth is that if the Environment Agency decides that money is not available to maintain defences, it can come back and say, “Even though it is ‘hold the line’ that does not necessarily mean that we’re going to have the money to maintain it.” There is a willingness on the part of landowners to take on that responsibility. In previous debates, I raised the difficulties facing landowners in obtaining the necessary consents to carry out minor maintenance work. Something has been done; the Environment Agency has produced a useful pack to give a simple guide to landowners about how to go about maintaining their defences, but it makes it clear there will be a need to get permission from Natural England in areas with sites of special scientific interest.

Mr St Joseph pointed out to me that a long time ago farmers were approached and asked whether they would accept SSSI designation on their sea walls, and they accepted it, thinking that it would have little impact or make little difference to the practicality of maintenance. Obviously, they were happy to do it. It was only later that they discovered that it made a huge difference and, as a result, it became much more difficult for them to obtain the necessary permissions to carry out repair work on their sea walls. The willingness is there but more still needs to be done to make it easier for landowners to take on the responsibility and carry out the work if the Environment Agency is unable or unwilling to do it.

I shall end by stressing a point that came out particularly in the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal, which is the feeling that there has been a lack of dialogue. A group of farmers in my constituency approached me and said that they had repeatedly asked to discuss with Natural England how it could be made easier to reach agreement on what was acceptable and welcome work to maintain defences, and on how to obtain the necessary consents. As far as I am aware, that group has not yet had a response from Natural England. I have written to Natural England and I have not yet had a response. Much more needs to be done in that area to increase co-operation and understanding, because the absence of those things leads to resentment, making it much more difficult to achieve what we all want, which is protection wherever possible of land and human habitation within the necessary economic constraints that exist today.

11:39

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

May I add to the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on securing this important and timely debate? It is important because Britain has, I am led to believe, 11,073 miles of coast, and, although I do not have “coastal” in my constituency name, the longest boundary I have is part of Morecambe bay on the west coast on the Irish sea. The debate is timely because the shoreline management plans are due for completion in the next few weeks. They will be delivered through the Environment Agency and local councils. In the longer term, my hon. Friends have hinted at concerns about erosion and about which parts of England are going up and which are going down. When I learned geography at school, I was always told that the east was going down and the west was coming up, but now I am told differently. However, hon. Members will be pleased to know that I do not want to go into that kind of science; I was not the greatest geographer, although for a time I did manage to teach the subject. [Interruption.] Well, I always thought that geography was an easier subject than history.

Thurnham parish is in my patch. It is a rural parish with no particular centre. It is not a village; it is an area comprising scattered farms and caravan parks and caravan developments by the coast. The people who live there are retired couples and those who want to bring up their children in a rural area. It lies between the villages of Cockerham and Glasson Dock and it is part of Lancaster city council district. It is Thurnham parish’s experience in this process that I want to highlight.

Unlike most of England’s coastline, Thurnham has been protected by a “hold the line” policy, which means that it has a system of hard defences—in this case a sea wall and vast numbers of drainage channels. However, according to the Environment Agency, such defences have been thought to be inadequate for future years and the whole area is being reassessed as part of the shoreline management process.

We then come on to the interesting concept of managed realignment, which is a phrase that sounds almost Orwellian. The Library briefing says that

“managed realignment is still in an experimental phase with research showing many uncertainties in outcome.”

My concern is that we are basing many of our shoreline management plans on something that is experimental, and that is impacting on people’s lives and livelihoods. If a new experimental system is to be used, where has the effort been to explain the benefits of the scheme or to convince and win over those who will be affected? At the moment, the people in Thurnham believe that this is part of a cost-saving exercise.

Let me turn to the consultation on the second phase, which my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) mentioned. Yet again, my constituents have had the same experience of consultation. There were two public meetings and a 12-month consultation in which everyone in this country, from the Ramblers Association to English Nature and English Heritage, was consulted—apart from the residents who live in the area. I am told that it was only when a district councillor asked a parish councillor why no one from Thurnham had been turning up to meetings that it was clear that no one had actually been told to turn up.

Eventually, the residents were involved in the process. We secured another couple of meetings to try to understand what was going on. The challenge from residents was, “Why are you just considering managed realignment?” That was after a long explanation of what managed realignment might involve. Again, the issue of compensation—or lack of compensation—arose. Some residents were even told that if this happened, they would have to demolish their own house to allow the sea and salt marshes to encroach. It almost seemed that the habitat of birds was far more important than the generations of people who had lived in the area for hundreds of years and who had invested a great deal of money there—some had done so just a few months before they found out about the operation.

We finally get to a stage in which the council recognises the residents and the residents are talking to the Environment Agency. The agency finally walks the sea wall and finds that it is in far better shape than it first imagined. Now it has been agreed that there will be a further look at the cost-benefits of managed realignment and of holding the line. The agency says that such a policy will involve £100,000, for which it hopes to bid centrally. If it does not get the money this year, it will try again next year. The completion of this process will take five years, but if it does not get the money this year it will take six years. In the meantime, that whole area is blighted in terms of the ability to sell property or invest more in thriving businesses. Farmers wanting to invest are lost in the whole process, wondering where to go from here.

On consultation, as other hon. Members have said, can the details of how the costs and benefits fit together be supplied to me and residents of the area, so that we can understand how the processes work? So far, the new Government have pushed for transparency and clarity on what the Government spend and how they operate, so it is not asking a great deal to see the spreadsheet analysis and the cost-benefit formulae behind it, so that residents of Thurnham can have some grasp of the process, even though they will now sit there for five, six or seven years with that blight on them.

In conclusion—I realise that other Members want to speak—my constituents’ experience of the SMP process has not been good. They were ignored at the start, and they have been treated as though they do not understand their own area. They are now asking the new Government to supply them with information and to treat them as the grown-ups they are by helping them to understand all the pressures on the Government in dealing with the coast. They live and work there, understand the coastline and have a contribution to make, and they are asking the Minister to let them.

11:46

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

Hemsby in Great Yarmouth has £80 million of tourism economy at risk from shoreline management issues. Tourism in Great Yarmouth is worth about £500 million a year, so a deteriorating coastline is a huge issue. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on securing this debate and being a fantastic advocate for her constituency and coastal erosion issues in general.

When the Minister visited our coastline—I congratulate him on coming so quickly—it was clear that he needed many advisers with him. There were advisers from Natural England, the Environment Agency and a range of other quangos for which I cannot begin to remember the acronyms. It highlighted residents’ problem in understanding what they can and cannot do. Every part of the coastline is under a different agency or ownership and involves going to a different body—from the local authority to central Government to various quangos.

In Hemsby, tourism is a great concern. A lot of the properties there, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) said, are mobile homes, which are classed as temporary and therefore not counted in the cost-benefit analysis. Their value runs to tens of millions of pounds, but they are simply not counted when weighed against water voles, for instance, or in our case the lifespan of terns. Terns are phenomenally interesting birds, but I struggle to see how they match up to a tourism industry of about £80 million.

We have an area of special scientific interest in Winterton that has eroded dramatically over the past 10 years and continues to erode to the point where commercial properties as well as a coast watchtower are at risk. In Hopton, residents have watched the coastline move dramatically in the past few years. The shoreline management plan’s weakness in round 2 was highlighted when properties bought there under “hold the line” were reassessed as requiring no active intervention.

My experience with the SMP has been good. In Great Yarmouth, at least, the authorities have listened and reacted by changing the final recommendation back to managed retreat. That might allow private individuals and commercial companies in Hopton, such as Potters and Haven, to consider making investments. However, to do so, they must be able to present a full business plan. I will come back to that issue, but I want to touch on a couple of local issues before I discuss the bigger picture.

In Scratby, we have a pathfinder scheme of which many residents and I were wary and suspicious, because it felt as if the Government of the time were trying to buy people off for a year without doing anything. The money put into the pathfinder, at least in Scratby, would have gone a long way toward finishing some of the flood defences for which residents have been working so hard for so long. What the people in Scratby have said to me—I met some of them recently when they came to the meeting of our all-party group on coastal and marine issues—is that they want the freedom to do something for themselves.

Indeed, the example of Scratby provides a perfect transition to discussion of the bigger issue. As has already been touched on, when we look at the shoreline management plans we look at issues over the next 50 or 100 years. The previous MP for Suffolk Coastal made the point—it has stuck with me because it is very relevant—that the companies and commercial bodies and some of the private individuals affected, particularly regarding tourism, need to see that they can protect the coastline and make an investment that gives them a business plan of 20 to 30 years.

However, we do not really need anything too much beyond that time scale. If we think about what is possible now—compared with what was possible and what we knew 20 years ago; and in some cases, five or 10 years ago—we realise that, once we get beyond the next 20 to 30 years, we are putting our fingers in the wind and guessing how technology and our understanding will change. Therefore, to be honest, the 100-year plans become somewhat redundant. We should focus on what we can do in the next five to 30 years, with a clear understanding that this process is about allowing private individuals and businesses to have a business case to protect their shoreline.

Education is an issue, as has already been mentioned by one of my hon. Friends. We have had a similar issue in Great Yarmouth. Residents in Scratby who are directly affected by coastal erosion obviously care passionately about it, are working hard on dealing with it and have put a lot of resources and their own time into that. However, there are residents who live just one or two roads back from the coastline, let alone a mile inshore, who knew nothing about that work until a major consultation was carried out. Residents in Great Yarmouth who do not live on the coastline do not really understand the big impact that erosion could have on them going down the line.

So education is an issue, because erosion will have an impact. If we do not do something soon to protect the coastline, it will retreat anyway. Erosion will impact on farming. I know that the NFU in Norfolk has been frustrated at its lack of involvement and its inability to understand how it can feed into the process, because of the complexity of the different organisations involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) is concerned about farming-related problems and the impact of salt water on the land. In Great Yarmouth we produce many potatoes, to which reference has been made, and some of us enjoy them regularly.

Tourism is also important for areas such as the Norfolk Broads. The authorities there are already finding that salt water levels are rising because of coastal erosion. So coastal erosion has a huge impact and we probably need to do a better job of educating our residents about it. There is huge value in doing something about this issue, in terms not only of protecting property but promoting future peace of mind. However, we must be clear about the time scale.

We also have to be honest and realistic about what the Government can afford to do. I fully understand that they are not in a position to do what I assume and hope they would like to do: to protect every inch of coastline around our country. Residents, certainly those in Great Yarmouth, also understand that. We had a meeting with the Minister near the Suffolk Coastal constituency, at which the people of Waveney, Great Yarmouth and North Norfolk were also represented. Those who attended understood that there is a financial constraint, and that some tough decisions therefore have to be made.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

First, I should declare an interest, in that I have an Environment Agency “blue blob” in my back garden and I live about 20 feet above sea level. Part of Redcar is actually below sea level.

I agree with everything that has been said so far, and I understand the financial constraints. However, I hope we do not allow the current debate and uncertainty to interfere with any schemes that are about to take place—in particular, the new sea wall in the town where I live. I hope the new Government do not decide to pull the funding on everything, and therefore take another number of years to decide what to do.

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he made his point very well.

One of the problems with the structure of SMPs is that many people have come to the view that they have become nothing more than a tick-box process for planning departments. We need to move beyond that. Finance is important in this regard. For some authorities, SMPs must be affordable and they must be responsible for them, because they feel a responsibility to their residents. However, in fact, we should be looking at a plan that gives residents, communities and commercial organisations as much ability to protect the shoreline as the Government have. That is where the big change could occur. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb)—my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal and I have worked closely with him on the matter—has been talking for some time about a community solidarity fund. I recommend that the Minister consider it, as it could allow local authorities to raise their own funds under the decentralisation—the Localism Bill.

The residents of Scratby have already talked to me about their ideas for a scheme. If they had the freedom to do so, they could raise the funds that would allow them to move forward and finance some of the work that they want to do. They believe that the work needs to be done, and the pathfinder schemes show that it would still be best for Scratby. However, it will have an impact on the coastline. That is why we need some form of community fund, based on the pathfinder work done in North Norfolk on the sale and lease-back scheme. It would be a community-based fund and would have no impact on the Government. Local people could take a view on whether they wanted to do that by holding a referendum, and they could then play their part. Local businesses and organisations could take part, and local authorities could get involved with land deals, for example, which could start making some of these opportunities possible.

[Mr Clive Betts in the Chair]

The main message on coastal erosion that I want to get across to the Department —the Minister was positive when he came to Great Yarmouth—is that although we would like the Government to protect everything, most important to the residents affected would be the freedom to get through the overwhelming bureaucracy. It would allow them to become more responsible for their own future; they want to have some control over their destiny and be able to run with it. If it were not for the fact that our forebears were able to deal with coastal erosion, many of those representing coastal areas would not be representing the constituencies they do. We therefore have a huge duty to free up the system, so that in the years to come we can represent our constituencies as they are now.

11:56

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

May I start my short submission by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on securing this debate? I confess that until I saw the debate title in the Order Paper, I did not realise that there was a shoreline management plan for my part of Wales, a point that was reflected upon by others this morning. That is all the more embarrassing because 60% of my constituency is a variety of shoreline. That is a great asset most of the time, but not when it comes to parliamentary boundary reviews. That, however, is a debate for another day.

The coastline is probably the single most important feature for the tourism industry in south-west Wales. Indeed, I slip into the conversation the fact that National Geographic magazine says that it is the second most beautiful coastline in the world. It beats Suffolk and Devon, and even Essex, to that coveted title. Although erosion is not a particular problem in my constituency, management is. For my constituents, the shoreline is not only beautiful and spectacular cliff. It also has beach, marsh and wetlands, as well as estuaries, and balancing the conflicting interests of agriculture and tourism is a constant battle. It is a battle for everyone, including the Pembrokeshire national park, and that has to be reflected in the management plans.

Not many people know this, but before becoming a Member I spent a little time working for the Environment Agency in south-west Wales as an official valuer. One of my earliest jobs was to value the sea wall between the Severn bridge and Trostre steel works in Llanelli. Those who can picture the map of south Wales will realise that it covers pretty much the entire coastline. I made one stupid decision and one sensible one. The stupid decision was to walk every inch of it; the sensible decision was to base my fees not on value but on time. That was just as well, because the capital value of such an asset is £1. Who would want to accept the liability?

That is a serious point. The wall was a hugely important physical feature for the Environment Agency, but it was also important to everyone who had an interest in the estuary. The problem for the agency was that every time one crossed a local authority boundary or a legal boundary between farms, or even when one crossed into a new wildlife trust area, the rules changed. It was impossible to have a cost-effective and cohesive policy for the sea wall along almost the entire stretch of coastline. The upshot is that it was not managed properly, and people’s businesses and livelihoods were put at risk.

We are of course sympathetic, as other Members have mentioned, to the point about the ever-increasing pressure on the wildlife asset. However, if there was ever an example of how these things pan out in reality, it is the Cardiff bay barrage. Significant sums were spent on giving migratory wild fowl preferment over the interests of farmers and residents. However, as soon as the barrage was constructed, nature adapted particularly successfully, as it often does, to the changing circumstances. Twenty years on—that is about the right time scale—there is no evidence whatever to suggest that there was a detrimental impact, particularly on migratory wild fowl in the area. The Cardiff bay barrage is a living example of a management process that involves a lot of physical alteration to the coastline, but which has no adverse effect on wildlife. We need to take careful note of the fact that it is possible in such circumstances to have your cake and eat it.

I want to revert to the point about liability and the legal point. As we proceed with the plans and with future shoreline management, we could give local authorities greater responsibility for taking such matters into account through the planning system. In addition, the legal profession may not have been particularly effective in one or two cases when it has come to undertaking searches on behalf of people purchasing properties adjacent to shorelines, to future management plans, and to attempting the impossible task of second-guessing the effects of nature over a long period.

12:01

[Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester South) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on securing this timely debate on shoreline management plans. She began by telling us that hers is the only constituency with the word “coastal” in its name. The coast that she represents is wonderful and, indeed, has an excellent brewery, which some of us have often appreciated in the past.

Like other hon. Members, the hon. Lady has expressed her constituents’ understandable concern about the future of their shoreline. She might not have been resident in the constituency for long, but she has clearly illustrated that she has a good understanding of the issues that affect its coast. It was a great pleasure to note that she has picked up her predecessor’s environmental concerns, which she clearly expressed.

Shoreline management issues are controversial and subject to a wide variety of different views and interests. Given the nature of our geography, we in the United Kingdom have sought over many centuries to manage the natural processes, such as erosion and deposition, that affect our shoreline. However, as time has passed, and particularly over recent decades, we have grown to have a better understanding of those natural processes, the risks associated with development on our shoreline and the mechanisms available to manage that shoreline.

The diversity of our shoreline has been well illustrated by the range of hon. Members’ contributions. The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) illustrated the fact that the coastline varies greatly not only from one constituency to another, but within constituencies. As a result, the solutions that are appropriate for one part of the shoreline can be very different from those that are needed elsewhere along the shoreline, even within a constituency.

The hon. Lady referred to “Making Space For Water”, and that important publication has had a great impact on how we think about the management of our coast. She also referred to the number of studies done since the mid-1990s, when shoreline management plans were first introduced, that have looked at the broad issues relating to how we manage our shoreline. Since the introduction of those first management plans, we have seen predictions of sea level rises due to climate change increase dramatically. Those have had to be incorporated into the second generation of plans. The current defences, which may have a limited life, might not be economically, socially, technically or environmentally practical in future. Also, changes in the shoreline might require new approaches to manage future risks.

Clearly, there is no suggestion that we could abandon coastal protection altogether, but climate change is a reality, as is the tilt in our geography, and changing shorelines are to some extent inevitable. I think that we are all aware, though, that many solutions are both expensive and problematic. We are also aware—I have referred to the diversity of our shorelines—that what is appropriate in one area might not be appropriate elsewhere, or indeed in that area in future. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) gave an excellent example: what is appropriate in Dawlish is not necessarily appropriate in the Exe estuary. She is right to make the case for continuing the defences at Dawlish because of the railway line that they carry and all that it represents, but she is also right to draw our attention to the different solutions necessary for the nearby Exe estuary.

The purpose of shoreline management plans has been to provide a coherent, consistent and strategic approach to shoreline management. All those elements are important as we look towards the next generation of plans. It is also important to recognise that, as was intended in the beginning, there must be a partnership between local government, local communities, the Environment Agency, Natural England and the many others with an interest in how particular stretches of shoreline are managed. Since their establishment in the mid-1990s, shoreline management plans have undoubtedly had considerable success in providing such strategic, consistent and coherent approaches, but the future will bring new challenges. The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal was right to draw our attention to the fact that it is not possible to envisage a ring of stone, as she put it, around the United Kingdom. Difficult choices will have to be made.

I hope that when the Minister replies to this debate, he will be able to reassure us about the future. It is of course important, as the hon. Lady said, to enable local communities to respond in ways that they feel are appropriate. It is also important, as the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) suggested, that there should be a degree of freedom and choice in the way forward. However, the approach to shoreline management plans must continue to be strategic. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that it will be, and that it will not simply be a matter of allowing those individuals and localities that can afford it to build defences, regardless of the impact on other stretches of coast, other communities or other individuals.

I also hope that the Minister can reassure us about something that must be of concern to all of us: the ability of the various partners to continue to play an active part in shoreline management plans. I referred to the Environment Agency and Natural England, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is suffering severe budget reductions, and local authorities will have to make significant reductions as well. I am not talking only about their ability to fund capital works. It is vital that the Minister reassures us about the ability of all the partners to continue to play their part in the management and maintenance of shorelines and about their ability to ensure that they have the expertise necessary to give advice and support to those who have an interest in the future management of shorelines, because the expenditure reductions taking place in DEFRA, the Environment Agency, Natural England and local authorities undoubtedly could result in the loss of the expertise that is essential to make the partnerships that are inherent in the success of shoreline management plans as successful in the future as they have been in the past.

12:10

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I shall begin by congratulating, as other hon. Members have done, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on obtaining the debate. I also congratulate my many other hon. Friends who participated. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal for my presence and for the absence of the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). I particularly apologise if she had not been forewarned that he could not be here. He is in Brussels at a Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting. That of course also affects her constituency, so I hope that she will forgive me and understand the change. I hope that she will also accept that my background was very significantly in her constituency at one time, when I was chairman of the local authority. Without getting into the “Whose is best?” debate, I can say that I am very familiar with the parts of the beautiful area to which she referred.

Almost all the hon. Members who spoke were, of course, from the eastern side of England, where the tilt is taking place and where coastal erosion is at its worst. However, I will pick up some of the specific points that were made. Shoreline management plans raise difficult issues and cause anxiety for people who are affected, especially if those plans point to the fact that, as the hon. Member for Leicester South (Sir Peter Soulsby) said, there is some inevitability about change. Sometimes we have to accept that it is not possible to maintain the status quo. That controversy in relation to the plans is also in some ways their strength. Arguably, if we did not have shoreline management plans, we would have to invent them. They were invented by the last Conservative Government in 1994; they predate the “Making Space for Water” project.

The plans provide an opportunity for local authorities at the coast, the Environment Agency and the various other bodies mentioned to explore options for the future with local communities and to clarify what they might expect from Government and what they can do for themselves. We owe it to people to be honest and open about what we can afford. I am concerned that a number of hon. Members have referred to the consultation process and pointed out inadequacies to do with second home owners, or others who may feel that they are affected but were not consulted. The consultation ought to be pretty substantial. It should run for three months, and the local authorities are required to run a range of processes to try to reach everyone, including employing coastal community engagement officers to support them. Clearly, if that is not happening, we need to pursue that, but it should be the case. I entirely agree with my hon. Friends that no one should feel excluded from the consultation.

When we are examining what we can afford, we must bear in mind the impact that a choice in one place may have on another. That might relate to the community or to the environment. There could even be an impact on coastal erosion, because sometimes if the sea is stopped in one place, it will vent itself in another. There is no doubt—this picks up the point made by the hon. Member for Leicester South—that the Government have fully recognised that flood and coastal defence is a priority. That is why spending on that defence has been largely protected in the spending review. We will be able to invest £2.1 billion over the next four years. We will protect the front-line services, such as forecasting and warning services and incident response, and prioritise the maintenance of existing defences.

It is worth referring to the fact that the threat is changing slightly. Coastal erosion has not changed, but there is now, probably as a result of climate change, an increasing incidence of flash flooding inland. We must also take that into account as part of our overall flood defence programmes. We expect to be able better to protect 145,000 households by March 2015. However, there is no getting away from the fact that times are tough, and it will be difficult to kick off new defence projects over the next couple of years.

I assure hon. Members that the Government are determined to proceed with those projects that are already well advanced. Schemes that are under way will continue and we shall protect the front-line services to which I have referred. However, it will not be affordable or sustainable to maintain the status quo everywhere on the coast, and I do not think that anyone expects otherwise. I entirely appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal that erosion is permanent. It is a pertinent point for us all to remember, but we must be honest with communities about what can and cannot be done, and provide them with sufficient information to make decisions for themselves. A generation or more of politicians in different Governments have probably given assurances about coastal defences that we have not been able to live up to, and perhaps we need to be more honest. The idea that we could always hold the line on the whole of our coastline in perpetuity was probably wrong from the outset.

I fully take the point about the need to inform homeowners about what might happen to their properties, and also the point that several hon. Members have made about the impact on agricultural land. I shall return to that in a moment. However, it does not make sense do things to manage erosion or flooding in one place without regard, as I said earlier, to the impact elsewhere. Nor is it right to give people the impression that the Government—and only Government—will pay for defences, or that they will pay for those defences if there are no realistic prospects for them.

That does not mean that people cannot take measures to protect themselves with the support of the relevant authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal referred to the visit of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and to work in her constituency at Bawdsey, Thorpeness and elsewhere, where a local initiative has created the means of self-help in erosion prevention. The coast has always been changing; my hon. Friend referred to a map suggesting that Cambridge could become a coastal town, and I can tell her that it once was. Much of my constituency, which is to the east of Cambridge, would not be there had it not been for flood defences. It probably would not be there if we had had to get planning permission for them, either, but never mind. There are villages in my constituency called Waterbeach, Landbeach and Reach—all names that show they were once on the coast. Some things come around again; though I hope they will not do so in my lifetime.

I want to respond to points made by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) referred to issues affecting her patch, including the integrity of the sea wall and the railway line to Dawlish—which I, too, would like protected; it is a wonderful rail trip, and I am glad that that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), is supportive. My hon. Friend discussed Dawlish Warren and the fact that there is a hold-the-line defence until 2025, when the policy will be mixed. That gives me the opportunity to make the point that shoreline management plans are not cast in stone for ever and a day. There is an opportunity to review them every five to 10 years, so changes can be made, to reflect new local priorities or countless other occurrences. I understand my hon. Friend’s comment about the question of who is paying, with respect to the Exe estuary, and will draw it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) represents another area where I spent much of my earlier life—though reaching the heights of chairmanship of the county NFU is something that eluded me.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I was at a meeting and saw my hon. Friend’s name in impressive gold letters on a board a few weeks ago, so he is clearly held in high regard.

[Mr Paice]

I am very grateful for that. I think that my hon. Friend will find that I was chairman of Essex Young Farmers, rather than the National Farmers Union. In those days, believe it or not, I was young. My hon. Friend also referred to the 1953 floods and the memories of them. I am probably one of the few people in the House who remembers them—just. I was a very small child at the time, living just outside Felixstowe. The flood came close to where I was living and it was horrendous. That sort of memory lives on. People will always be frightened if they have been through that awful experience.

My hon. Friend referred to the importance of agricultural land. As a Minister with responsibility for agriculture, and coming from such a background, too, I am very concerned about it. However, I accept that against someone’s home, it comes second; we must all realise that. I hope that the point I will come to in a minute about other Government proposals will reassure colleagues that it is something that we are trying to address, albeit in a different way. I take his point about the involvement of local landowners in shoreline management plans and I am very much aware of the work of Andrew St Joseph in trying to drive that forward and in generating dialogue.

My hon. Friend and one or two other hon. Members referred to the role of Natural England. Although it has a vital role to play, it is important that it adopts a more enabling and supportive role and that it recognises that other issues are involved. We are making some substantial changes to the way in which Natural England is organised and run, which I hope will make it more responsive to local needs and understanding, and I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon also referred to the difficulty of landowners in doing maintenance work. I am not sure whether that happens just in his constituency, but an Essex farmer, who had better remain nameless, told me that he was given permission by the Environment Agency to do some maintenance work on the sea wall, which involved several hundred tonnes of stone. Natural England then came along and told him that the stone had to go in by helicopter, which stopped the process in its tracks.

Mobile homes, to which a number of hon. Friends referred, are included in the cost benefit analysis, although at a lower rate than a fixed building because they can be moved. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) referred to the issue of consultation and to the apparent priority of the habitats directive, which allows projects to go ahead, even where damage to protected sites is foreseen as a consequence. Projects that damage European protected sites can still go ahead if there are imperative reasons for overriding that public interest or if there are no alternative solutions and if necessary compensatory measures are in place.

The issue of how cost benefits are calculated, to which my hon. Friend also referred, are addressed on the DEFRA website. I will write to him with more detail, because I fully appreciate that people have a right to know. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) referred to the solidarity fund promoted by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, is, in principle, supportive of that, but it is a matter for local people to take forward. Although the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) cover a devolved issue, I appreciate his point about the liability aspect.

As the hon. Member for Leicester South said, no two places on the coast are the same, which is one reason why greater local involvement is necessary if we are to get this job right. The powers of consent for work rest with the local authority, except where there are certain European obligations to achieve, and then the powers rest with the Secretary of State. The House is aware that the coalition Government are determined to be the greenest Government ever, and that includes protecting and enhancing the natural environment. None the less, we need to be more creative in the way in which we serve those interests as well as meeting our international obligations and protecting agricultural land wherever possible.

Greater local involvement is at the heart of the Government’s proposed “payment for outcomes” funding approach, which we launched for public consultation last Wednesday, alongside the joint consultation with the Environment Agency of the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy. The consultation suggests changes to the way in which Government funding is allocated to flood and coastal defence projects. That follows recommendations by Sir Michael Pitt in his review of the 2007 flooding. The reforms aim to provide improved transparency and greater certainty over potential funding levels from the general taxpayer for every flood and coastal defence project. They will also allow local areas to have a bigger say in what is done to protect them. Over time, local ambitions on protection no longer need be constrained by what national budgets can afford, and the reforms will encourage innovative, cost-effective solutions in which civil society can play a greater role. This is about saying what the Government think the cost-benefit analysis is and, therefore, what funding might be available from Government. If that is not enough to do the work, the local community has the option to find funding to enable it to happen.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

One of the criticisms that sometimes comes out is about over-engineering and, therefore, the high costs of work. That is a constant refrain from landowners who believe that they could do a lot of the work at a much lower cost.

[Mr Paice]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; she makes a point that has been made many times. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury is conscious of that issue and is working with the Environment Agency to see how we can alter the situation, which I do not think necessarily means reducing the specification of what is done. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter.

The proposals to which I have just referred are subject to consultation and final decisions will be made in the spring after the consultation closes on 16 February 2011. I hope that this will mark a significant step forward in how we go about things. I think I have referred to most of the issues that hon. Members raised; if I have not or if I have answered their concerns inadequately, perhaps Members could let me know.

[Sir Peter Soulsby]

I referred, at the conclusion of my remarks, to the loss of staff and expertise from Natural England, the Environment Agency and local government. The Minister referred to the role of Natural England as enabling and supporting Government. Will he provide reassurance that the Department is aware if that role is to be played, Natural England needs experts to offer the support that is fundamental to making a success of the plans?

[Mr Paice]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman assurances about individuals for obvious reasons. Although, as he says, we are making significant savings across all the arms-length bodies, and within DEFRA, there is no reason why they should not retain the element of expertise to which he refers. We are trying to ensure that those arms-length bodies retain the ability do what they have to do and what Government need them to do, which includes giving scientific advice. Natural England is, after all, the statutory adviser to the Government on such issues, and it will retain that role. Where there are functions that the private or third sector can perform, we should try to make that happen. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting otherwise, but those bodies have taken their fair share of the reduction in funding that we have had to make as part of dealing with the overall public deficit. I hope that I have addressed most of the issues raised by hon. Members, but if not, I am happy to write to anyone who wishes to raise an issue with me.

Breast Cancer Screening (Young Women)

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Westminster Hall

12:29

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Breast Cancer is the UK’s most common cancer. It affects thousands of families every year. Almost 48,000 people were diagnosed with breast cancer last year: 47,000 women and 277 men, and 125 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer today. Breast cancer incidence rates among women have increased by 50% over the past 25 years—5% in the past 10 years—and, because of lifestyles changes such as increased obesity and drinking in young women, those incidence rates will continue to rise, particularly for those under 50. Eight in 10 breast cancers diagnosed are in women aged 50 or over, but that means that two in every 10 are diagnosed in younger women, who may have young families. For young women the disease can be particularly virulent and aggressive, and the chances of survival are less good as a result.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the time between the mammogram and the results is critical, and that the length of that period depends on the area and district a person lives in and the hospital they attend? It could be between a week and up to four weeks, depending on the hospital, which could mean the difference between life and death. At the same time, those with money have the opportunity to have a mammogram in the morning and receive the results in the afternoon.

[Pat Glass]

That is incredibly true. I am particularly concerned about young women, and in many cases the younger they are, the more virulent the disease is and the chances of survival are less good as a result, so that is particularly crucial. Every family in this country will be touched by this awful disease. Within my family, four close relatives have died of breast cancer in recent years, all aged well under 50; and a cousin, also under 50, is currently battling the disease for a second time.

However, it was an inspirational woman, Trish Greensmith, who runs the Chyrelle Addams breast cancer appeal trust in my constituency, who first brought home to me the number of young women who are being diagnosed with, and having to fight, breast cancer today. She told me that when she first visited an oncology clinic she was struck by the number of young women in the waiting room—young women who were trying to deal with virulent and aggressive cancers while bringing up young families. Under the current system, they would never be offered the opportunity for routine screening, which might have detected their cancers early and saved their lives. More women are surviving breast cancer than ever before, and the survival rates have steadily improved over the past 30 years, but 12,000 women and 70 men in the UK died from breast cancer last year.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Few people will not have a friend or relative who will suffer from breast cancer and who would benefit from earlier diagnosis and improved information. I understand that Cambridge university has developed a computer programme called “Predict”, which allows any patient—or doctor—to go online and enter their symptoms and the kind of cancer they have, and it will predict their life expectancy and the likelihood of survival. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would be another useful tool to help inform and reassure women and men who are diagnosed with breast cancer?

[Pat Glass]

I am aware of the “Predict” computer system, which is an incredibly useful tool in the hands of clinicians, but I do not think it should be generally available for people to use in their own homes to calculate, using their symptoms, how long they have to live. I think they would find that very worrying. However, it would be incredibly useful for their doctor.

Of the women who died last year from breast cancer, 1,300 were under 50 years old. We know that women with a mother, sister or daughter who have been diagnosed with breast cancer have almost double the risk of being diagnosed themselves. We know that the risk increases with the number of first-degree relatives diagnosed, but even so, eight out of nine breast cancers occur in women with no family history of cancer whatsoever.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

A woman in Derbyshire, Wendy Watson, runs the national hereditary breast cancer helpline. What is my hon. Friend’s view on getting national funding for that helpline, which is a lifeline for many women suffering from hereditary breast cancer?

[Pat Glass]

I am aware of Wendy and the fantastic work she does; I also know that she is struggling to secure funding. Perhaps the Minister might look at that as a result of today’s debate. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point.

We know that obesity presents a risk, as do hormone replacement therapy and the use of oral contraceptives. In the binge capital of Europe, we are now told that as little as one alcoholic drink per day increases the risk of breast cancer by about 12%.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Breakthrough Breast Cancer, which is an excellent organisation, has rammed home the point that awareness is important and that we should all do all we can to remind women of that. We should make women aware that they need to be aware.

[Pat Glass]

I absolutely agree.

Going back to the risk factors—obesity, HRT, oral contraceptives and alcohol—all of them are likely to affect women under 50 more than women over 50, and yet women under 50 are not routinely offered screening of any kind. About 1.5 million women in the UK are screened for breast cancer each year, and we must congratulate those involved in the routine screening programme on the many lives they save. The previous Government extended the screening programme so that from 2012, all women aged 47 to 73 will be invited for routine screening. That extension will save many more lives, but it will do nothing to help identify breast cancer in younger women.

Concerns have been expressed that wider screening could lead to over-diagnosis, but recent research is showing that the benefits of mammographic screening in terms of lives saved are greater than the harm caused by over-diagnosis. Those same arguments about over-diagnosis were used in the past to argue against extending screening for womb cancer and cervical cancer, but the response to those arguments has always been that it is better to be safe than sorry, and that, in the case of breast cancer screening, between two and two and a half lives are saved for every over-diagnosed case. Despite that, however, women under 50 are not currently offered routine screening.

It is also argued that film mammograms are not as effective for pre-menopausal women as for post-menopausal, as the greater density of breast tissue in pre-menopausal women makes it more difficult to detect problems. That is absolutely right. Screening of women under 50 may not be as effective as screening of women over 50, but it can still be effective, certainly in the absence of any other screening programme.

It is also argued that routine screening of women under 50 is not necessary, because the incidence of breast cancer is lower in that age group. I would say, “Tell that to the hundreds or thousands of young women battling this disease”, who say that any arguments about numbers are outweighed by the increased virulence of the disease in the young.

We are told that, because breast cancer is less common in women under 50, research trials have shown that regular screening of young women does not help to save lives. It is even argued that in other trials, regular mammogram screening is more of a risk than not screening. However, I say to the Minister, “Tell that to the young women currently undergoing chemotherapy”.

It is absolutely clear that mammogram screening is most effective among women who have gone through the menopause, but recent research shows that it can also be effective among those aged 35 to 50 and that, despite all the counter-arguments, there is now increasing evidence that there are significant gains to be made by routine screening of women from the age of 35 upwards.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I compliment my hon. Friend on securing time for this important debate. On routine screening and the value of targeting a particular age group, I, too, have received information from Breakthrough Breast Cancer—an excellent organisation—pointing out that 1,400 lives a year are saved by routine breast screening. However, Breakthrough Breast Cancer also says that any woman aged 70 or over is not routinely invited to attend for breast screening. It may well be advantageous, in terms of improving the health outcomes of those women, if a screening programme targeted them, too, in view of the high incidence of breast cancer among post-menopausal women.

[Pat Glass]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

I ask the Minister to consider the arguments that have been put forward and the increasing weight of medical evidence calling for routine screening from the age of 35 onwards. In his response, I ask him not to pull out the one argument that the coalition Government seem to have for everything: that there is no money. If we could set aside £9 billion last week to build more trains to make commuting more comfortable, surely we can consider routine screening. If we can find £9 billion to lend to the Irish in their hour of need, surely we can find the money to save young lives.

I understand that the Minister is unable to announce that routine screening for breast cancer will start tomorrow, but he could consider a long-term plan—over five years, for example—to reduce the age of screening to 45 in year one, 42 in year two, 40 in year three, 38 in year four, and to 35 within five years. Such a policy would be universally welcomed and could save precious lives.

I am aware of the Breakthrough Breast Cancer campaign. In particular, it seeks early breast screening for women from the age of 35 where there is a history of breast cancer. We must learn lessons from the highly successful cervical cancer screening programme. Early intervention is cost-effective—it saves the country money in the longer term, and it saves lives.

12:41

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) on securing this important debate. As others have said, it is important that we do everything possible to increase awareness of breast cancer so that people are more aware of signs and symptoms and are able to present themselves at an earlier time and thus make the chances of survival much greater. I also congratulate the hon. Lady on the work that she does in raising funds and increasing awareness of the issue, as she has done today. I note the personal experience that she draws on.

Around 40,000 women a year are diagnosed with the disease—that is a third of all cancer diagnoses in women. The hon. Lady made a good speech setting out a powerful case that needs proper consideration. It is a shame that she made the point about Ministers trotting out certain lines about coalition funding and so on, as that added nothing to the debate. I was certainly not intending to go down that line because I want to try to give a substantive response to her remarks.

Breast cancer can strike women of all ages, although a person’s risk of developing it rises dramatically after middle age, with cases peaking among women in their early 60s. The prognosis for a person with breast cancer has transformed over the last 40 years. It has gone from a consistently lethal killer, to the second-least deadly form of the disease, if judged by five-year survival rates.

The NHS breast screening programme has played a major part in that success. Since it began in 1988, the programme has made a huge difference to a woman’s chances of surviving breast cancer. Around 83% of all women with breast cancer are still alive five years after diagnosis, and among those whose cancer is detected through screening, that survival rate increases to over 96%. That is a striking demonstration of the power of detecting cancer early on—that point has rightly been made in the debate—and that is why we will make earlier detection a key part of our forthcoming cancer reform strategy.

Experts believe that the current breast screening programme saves 1,400 lives a year among the 50 to 70-year-old age group on which it focuses. That point was made by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). Therefore, the hon. Lady asks a fair question about whether there is scope to widen the net and whether that would be appropriate. Should we be looking to extend the programme to cover other age groups?

Under the current programme, women aged between 50 and 70 are routinely invited for screening, and women over 70 can request to be screened every three years. The hon. Lady suggested that women as young as 30 should be invited for screening. When it comes to health care, our priority is simple—to have outcomes that compare with the very best in the world. We will achieve that by handing power to front-line professionals and basing decisions on the best available evidence. That is where there is a debate. I am interested and I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady said about the emerging evidence. However, when it comes to extending screening to all women older than 30, as far as I can see, the evidence is not there.

[Pat Glass]

May I just clarify that I am talking about women between the ages of 35 and 47 rather than 30? That is the point at which screening would be most helpful.

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that clarification. In 2006, the Institute of Cancer Research published the results of a 15-year study of the benefits of screening women from the age of 40. The study invited about 53,000 women to receive annual breast cancer screening over nine years and then compared them to a control group of women who received standard NHS treatment. The study found that the reduction in deaths due to screening was not statistically significant. I understand that, for the individual, it is 100%; I understand the hon. Lady’s powerful point. She might say that, if such measures save a single life, they are worth doing. However, the study pointed out, as she seemed to guess, that early screening had significant disadvantages. Almost one in four women in the study had at least one false positive, with all the resulting distress, anxiety and unnecessary follow-up, including invasive biopsies. Currently, there are about 7 million women aged between 30 and 49 in England. I accept that she wants to screen from 35 onwards, but if the take-up rate among that population were 75%, we would be screening about 5 million more women a year. Even if the minimum age were 35, it would create the issue of false positives.

[Ian Lavery]

Does the Minister agree that there is still a huge diagnosis problem, involving the time between mammogram and results, based on what is classed as a postcode lottery? We need to look at that and ensure that each patient, regardless of wealth or where they reside, gets her mammogram results within days, not weeks.

[Paul Burstow]

Yes. It is entirely right for the hon. Gentleman to make that point. That is why this Government will publish the first ever NHS outcomes framework, which will focus much more clearly on how we ensure that the system delivers the right outcomes in terms of cancer survival. We will publish that shortly, along with a new cancer reform strategy in due course that will say even more.

The Government’s view at present is that the risks of the change proposed by the hon. Lady outweigh the benefits. However, I want to ensure that the evidence that she has discussed is properly evaluated by officials in the Department. We will consider those points and her representations carefully, and I will write to her after we have had an opportunity to do so. However, the Department’s view and the Government’s view about maintaining the status quo is shared by most countries in Europe, as well as the Council of Europe, which recommends a breast cancer screening age of 50 to 69. The United States recommends screening every two years for women aged between 50 and 74. The position that this country has adopted for a considerable time is based on international practice and the best available evidence. One must be open to changes in evidence; that is important in an evidence-based approach to developing policy.

[Grahame M. Morris]

On best practice and targeting available resources, the figures suggest that in some areas, as many as one third of women within the target group aged 50 to 70 do not attend routine screenings. There are various reasons for that. It might have to do with misconceptions about the nature of the screening test. In some urban areas, it might have to do with the fact that there is a large transient population. In my area, where we also have the problem of people failing to turn up for routine appointments, they may be reluctant or poorly educated, or a number of—

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions are meant to be brief.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I apologise. The Minister will see the point that I am trying to make.

[Paul Burstow]

I understand fully. Today, the Secretary of State will make a statement in the House setting out this Government’s new commitments on public health and the clear lines that we are drawing on tackling health inequalities. Some of the issues clearly involve a social gradient that we must address, and we will address them in our new cancer reform strategy and public health White Paper.

[Pat Glass]

I appreciate what the Minister says about considering new evidence. Will he also take into account—this relates to the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris)—the issues that affect younger women and the cohort that those younger women are likely to come from? It is about obesity, hormone replacement therapy and alcohol. It is younger women from low socio-economic backgrounds who are likely to be hit hardest by those things.

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful for those points, and I am coming to them, which is why I was smiling—it was not because of the subject, which is very serious.

Let me talk briefly about partial age extensions, which is another issue worth airing. The last cancer reform strategy committed the Government to extending the NHS breast screening programme to women between the ages of 47 and 73. Beyond 73 years of age, patients would still be able to self-refer. That extension will ensure that all women are invited for screening before their 50th birthday. The June revision to the NHS operating framework confirmed that the extension will begin this year—in 2010-11. By the end of March next year, we expect 60% of screening programmes to be screening that wider age group, and we obviously want to go as far and as fast as we can.

Our updated cancer reform strategy will focus on outcomes and on improving cancer survival rates. Although the one-year and five-year survival rates have improved in recent years, we still lag behind other European nations. If we could match the five-year survival rates of the best countries in Europe, we could save up to 10,000 lives every year in England. As has been said, therefore, early diagnosis is essential. In September, I announced funding for a new £9 million campaign to get people to recognise and, importantly, to act earlier on the signs and symptoms of cancer. We are talking not so much about a campaign as a series of 59 local campaigns, which will focus on the three big killers: breast cancer, bowel cancer and lung cancer. The campaigns will raise public awareness of symptoms and encourage people to talk to their GP at the earliest possible opportunity. We will target those populations that the hon. Member for Easington talked about, which are often harder to reach.

Our approach will also encourage GPs and others in primary care to act appropriately. The tragedy of these cancers is that they are preventable. As has been said, lifestyle—eating too much, drinking too much and not getting enough exercise—plays a big part. That is why the coalition is determined that public health will become a far more important part of overall public policy and practice nationally and locally. We will make sure that we treat and prevent cancer in that context. That is why we will, as I said, publish a White Paper later today to set out how we will provide the right leadership and the strategy to improve people’s lifestyles and to reduce their risk of getting cancer in the first place.

[Natascha Engel]

Will the Minister briefly outline his opinion regarding national funding for the hereditary breast cancer helpline? It is a national service and it needs national funding, but the Department of Health has said that it is more appropriate to fund it locally. This incredibly important service provides information and advice and helps women up and down the country. What does the Minister think needs to be done about it?

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I certainly pay tribute to the work that the helpline does, but it is important to stress that NHS organisations and commissions are responsible for such funding, so it is perfectly possible for them to collaborate to make the resources available.

The hon. Lady rightly refers to inherited cancers. It is perhaps important to stress that about 5% of women will contract breast cancer simply because it runs in the family. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance published in 2004 recommends that women with a moderate or higher risk of familial breast cancer should receive annual screening. However, across the NHS, delivery is patchy, and we have heard examples of that patchiness in the debate. Women deserve better than that; they deserve a consistent service wherever they happen to live. For that reason, the NHS breast screening programme will soon take responsibility for ensuring that familial screening is regularly and routinely carried out.

In conclusion, I very much respect the points that the hon. Member for North West Durham has made, the passion with which she delivered them and the commitment that she clearly has to improving our ability to detect these cancers early and prevent them. We must do everything we can to improve survival rates and to improve the quality of life for those living with cancer. We will do that by focusing resources on what works and where the evidence demonstrates the risks are outweighed by the benefits. In this instance, the evidence at the moment is clear: extending annual breast cancer screening to all women over the age of 35 would not improve their chances of surviving the disease. However, it would mean that we would need to ensure that we did not place women in a situation where they felt unnecessary anxiety as a result of false positives. We will always act on best evidence, which is why I make the undertaking to take away the evidence that the hon. Lady referred to. At this time the evidence does not lead us to conclude that there is a case for change. But we will keep it under review.

I thank the hon. Lady for raising these matters today. The Government are determined to achieve the best possible outcomes for people with cancer through our public health strategy and our cancer strategy. We are committed to ensuring that the resources are there to avoid the postcode lottery that some hon. Members described, an inheritance that we are determined to deal with.

12:55

Sitting suspended.

Christians in Iraq

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Westminster Hall

13:00

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under you this afternoon, Mr Betts. I am particularly grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me this debate on the position of Christians in Iraq. It follows on from the very well informed debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) almost exactly two years ago on 16 December 2008. At that time my hon. Friend told the House that back in 2003, there were some 1.2 million Christians in Iraq and that that number had been reduced to around 600,000 because of the persecution they had suffered. Sadly, since then things have continued to be even more difficult for Christians in Iraq.

It is worth putting on the record the fact that there have been Christians in Iraq since virtually the time of Christ, when doubting Thomas stopped off in what is now modern day Iraq. There are Christians in Iraq who still speak Aramaic, the language that Jesus himself would have spoken, and the tomb of the Old Testament Prophet Nahum is in Iraq with the inscription from Nahum chapter 3 verse 18:

“Your people are scattered on the mountains with none to gather them”—

words which, unfortunately, have an eerily accurate ring to them for Christians in and from Iraq today.

Last week I met in my office in the House of Commons an outstanding member of the Iraqi Government—the Minister for Human Rights, Mrs Wijdan, who is herself a Chaldean Catholic, and Canon Andrew White, the Anglican vicar of St George’s in Baghdad. Andrew is a long-standing friend and one of the most inspirational Christian leaders I have ever met. I learnt from Canon White that in this month alone more than 100 Christians have been killed in Iraq, and 58 were killed in one massacre during evening mass in the Syrian Catholic church of Our Lady of Salvation in Baghdad on 31 October. Since that atrocity many more Christians have also been targeted, blown up or told that they no longer belong to Iraq and should leave now or be executed. This violence has gone on for many years.

Back in August 2004 there was a series of bombings targeting five churches, and 11 people were killed. In October 2006 an Orthodox priest, Boulos Iskander, was snatched in Mosul by a group demanding ransom. Despite payment of the ransom, the priest was found beheaded, with his arms and legs cut off. In June 2007 Ragheed Ganni, a priest and secretary to Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahh, was shot dead in his church along with three companions. In January 2008 bombs went off outside three Chaldean and Assyrian churches in Mosul, two churches in Kirkuk and four in Baghdad. In February 2008 the Chaldean Catholic Archbishop, Paulos Faraj Rahh, was kidnapped. His body was found in a shallow grave two weeks later. In April 2008 Father Adel Youssef, an Assyrian Orthodox priest, was shot dead by unknown assailants. In February 2010 at least eight Christians died in a two-week spate of attacks in the northern city of Mosul. So it is a pretty sorry state of affairs.

I am well aware that Iraq is still in the process of forming a Government, some eight and a half months after its general election earlier this year. I would request, however, that both British and American Ministers raise these issues with the newly appointed Iraqi Ministers as soon as they can after the formation of the new Government. I also hope that able Iraqi Christian MPs are not held back from Government positions merely because of their faith. When I met Mrs Wijdan last week, she told me that a lot of her requests were very practical ones to do with preventing terrorists from outside Iraq entering her country to kill and injure. She also requested help with counter-terrorism and intelligence to prevent such future atrocities.

I have concerns about aspects of the Iraqi education system regarding what is taught about minority faiths in Iraqi schools. Canon Andrew White told me last week that children in his church are being abused at school because they are Christian, and we know that when such prejudices are taught to the young, they can be very hard to shift. I am of course conscious of the recent media reports that some part-time schools in the UK have textbooks that inflame religious prejudice, so we should acknowledge these issues in our own country as well.

In the debate two years ago on this subject, there was discussion of the possible formation of a 19th province in the Nineveh plains, where there would be a Christian majority which would have control over the police and local militia. It is not for foreign countries to advise Iraq how to organise its internal affairs, but I hope that a major middle eastern country such as Iraq can do better than to opt for any form of segregation or ghettoisation of different faiths. I was impressed by the views of Yonadam Kanna, a prominent Member of the Iraqi Parliament, who is a Christian and was reported on the BBC as saying:

“This is our home, we have been together with Muslims for centuries, this is our destiny, and we will stay together”.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I obtained a debate on this subject two years ago because, as my hon. Friend knows, I visited Iraq and went to the tomb of Prophet Nahum. More importantly for the purposes of the present debate, I heard some heart-rending stories from mothers who had lost children and husbands. We have a responsibility in this country because, for all Saddam Hussein’s horrendous faults, there was some sort of protection for the Christian community in Iraq. We invaded Iraq and since then the situation for Christians has become deplorable, frightful and murderous. Our Government have some responsibility with respect to the 19th province to make representations and encourage the Government of Iraq to protect that ancient Christian community.

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has gone one better than me in going to Iraq and seeing things for himself. I was able only to meet an Iraqi Minister last week, in Parliament. I bow to my hon. Friend’s experience, and thank him for his presence here and his continuing interest in the subject.

Some foreign countries, and Iraqis in exile, have called for greater provision to be made for Christians in Iraq to leave and settle overseas. Again, the view of Canon Andrew White and his congregation at St George’s, Baghdad, is that they wish

“to stay and to be safe”

where they are. That should not be too much to ask for. One issue of concern is the fact that traditionally, churches have been protected by Christian police and military personnel in Iraq. As the persecution of Christians has intensified there have been fewer Christian police and military personnel, at a time when they are most needed. The new Iraqi Government will need to examine that issue, to ensure that all minority communities can be protected, even when there are dwindling numbers of police and military personnel from the faith concerned.

An initiative that has done a lot of good in recent years in promoting tolerance and dialogue between the different faiths in Iraq is the High Council of Religious Leaders in Iraq. It was funded by the United States but I understand that the funding has been stopped. Denmark has now agreed to continue funding the group. Parliament should pay tribute to the Government of Denmark for stepping in to provide funding for that organisation. One of the fatwas produced by the group said:

“Therefore religious and ethical duty calls us as Shia and Sunni religious leaders to announce that all killing must be stopped now whatever the reasons and the cause and the motives between Muslims. We must start reconciliation and tolerance and make them the only way to solve the conflicts between the brothers in our country.”

It goes on to urge all people of faith in Iraq

“to reject and forsake all violence, killing and provocation”

and furthermore says,

“achieving peace and living together under the rule of law is the demand on all Iraqi people and is the religious and ethical duty of everybody to abandon all violence.”

I am sure we would all say amen to that.

In the debate two years ago concern was also expressed about Christian-owned land being taken in the Kurdish north of Iraq. The then Minister of State at the Foreign Office said that he would

“endeavour to discuss it with him”—

the Kurdish regional Government Minister for extra-regional affairs—

“at the earliest opportunity.”—[Official Report, 16 December 2008; Vol. 485, c. 44WH.]

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

It is excellent that my hon. Friend has secured the debate today. Does he agree that it was a very brave commitment by the coalition Government to maintain levels of funding for overseas aid? Does he also agree that the stated intention of helping post-conflict areas of the world to build tolerant, sustainable communities is a vital aim, and that the Government could be looking at the situation in Iraq with a view to investing resources to ensure the safety of the Christian community there and help them in their larger role of building a peaceful and sustainable Iraq?

[Andrew Selous]

I thank my hon. Friend, who makes an excellent point; I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will take it back to his colleagues at the Department for International Development to see what can be done. I would be grateful to hear from him whether such conversations with his predecessor took place, and what the result of them was. It would be good to understand how the British Government intend to handle the future protection of all minorities, including that of Christians in Iraq.

We who sit in this Parliament have the immense privilege of having a voice in the mother of Parliaments. It is our duty to use our voices to speak for those who are suffering for their faith in Iraq.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Has the hon. Gentleman had any discussions with the British Council, which has done similar work in other conflict areas in promoting tolerance and trying to get a greater understanding of diversity, about what it can do in Iraq? Would he welcome that mechanism as a way in to Iraq to promote Christianity?

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful for that intervention, which builds very helpfully on the point that was made earlier. I do not know the exact position of the British Council in Iraq. I raised that question with Canon Andrew White when I met him last week. I will leave the hon. Gentleman’s question on the table, as it were, and if the Minister can pick it up in his response, that would be helpful. The hon. Gentleman is right to pursue that line of argument and I am glad the Minister has heard what he had to say.

Whatever our views on the war in Iraq—there are people in this Chamber today from both sides of that debate—there is no question but that this country has an ongoing responsibility and obligation to the people of Iraq and the Christian minority within it. They need to know that they are not alone. Even though our forces on the ground have stopped fighting, we must show that we have not forgotten them and that we have a continuing obligation. I am incredibly grateful to colleagues today for supporting this debate. We have made it clear to our Christian brothers and sisters in Iraq that we stand with them, and that we will continue to ask these questions of our own Government and of the international community.

In its quest to improve human rights around the world, the United Nations has produced for Governments, in relation to the suffering of their own peoples, a new doctrine of responsibility to protect. What engagement have the British Government had with the United Nations and other international organisations to undertake the hard and difficult work of reconciliation and of instilling tolerance, to ensure that these ancient peoples who have lived together in peace for many centuries can do so again, and that Christians are not forced to flee Iraq and many other parts of the middle east? I look forward to the Minister’s reply and thank him for his time this afternoon.

13:09

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

I am grateful to have this opportunity to respond to this important debate. I pay tribute to the many Members who have attended and contributed. By so doing, they have indicated and demonstrated their interest in this important matter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this debate. He raises an important issue that enables me to set out not only the Government’s policy towards the protection of Christians in Iraq but our firm position against religious persecution worldwide.

Let me start by saying that the Government utterly condemn all attacks against Iraqi citizens, including Christians and other minority communities. We were appalled at the attack on the Our Lady of Salvation church in Baghdad on 31 October, which killed more than 50 people. The further attacks on 10 November targeted mainly Christian areas across Baghdad, killing six and wounding more than 30 people.

On 1 November, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), spoke to Canon Andrew White, the vicar of the Anglican church in Baghdad, St George’s, to express his sadness about the attacks on Christians and the need for all religious minorities to be resilient in the face of such violence. He also issued a statement on behalf of the Government, which I think is worth briefly quoting from. He said:

“I utterly condemn the attack against Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad. My thoughts are with the families and friends of all those that have been killed or injured in this tragic event. I urge the Iraqi authorities to do all they can to bring to justice those who are responsible for this attack on innocent worshippers, and all Iraq’s politicians and diverse communities to work together to tackle the threat of violent extremism.”

That is the position of the British Government. We remain in close contact with the Iraqi Government and we are committed to doing all we can to support them where possible.

On 10 November, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the visiting Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Zebari, and he specifically raised the issue of Iraqi Christians with him. Mr Zebari acknowledged that the protection of Christians was the Iraqi Government’s responsibility.

My right hon. Friend and colleague the Prime Minister also discussed the attacks on Christians in Iraq, as well as the wider security situation, in a phone call to Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki on 15 November, just two weeks ago. The Prime Minister made it clear that the Iraqis had the UK’s full support and in turn Mr al-Maliki expressed his concern at recent developments in his country. Mr al-Maliki said that the Iraqi Government were doing everything possible to tackle the terrorist threat and that UK support—including support for efforts to persuade Christian minority groups to remain in Iraq, which is an issue that has been raised in this debate—would be most welcome.

During a visit to the Our Lady of Salvation church on 9 November, Mr al-Maliki said his Government worked for

“justice and equality among all citizens, noting that Christians are part and parcel of a civilization all Iraqis are proud of.”

I was encouraged by the emphatic nature of the Iraqi Prime Minister’s statement with regard to Christians in Iraq and the part that they have to play.

I noted the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire regarding the dwindling number of Christian police and security guards in Iraq. The Iraqi police service plays a fundamental role in ensuring that Iraq has a strong rule of law that protects all Iraqis regardless of their religious affiliation. We will continue to encourage the Iraqi Government to improve the professionalism of their police and security forces.

My hon. Friend may be aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who is the Minister with responsibility for Iraq, visited Iraq between 22 and 25 November. On that visit, he met a number of senior Christian figures and he raised the plight of the Christian community with the Foreign Minister, the new Speaker of the Council of Representatives, and the President and the Prime Minister of the Kurdistan regional government. The central Government in Iraq are taking responsibility for improving security for Christians, while the Kurdish leadership offered protection to Christians coming to the Kurdistan region from elsewhere in Iraq.

[Mr Leigh]

It is not only the appalling violence against Christians in Iraq that is of concern but the constant intimidation and encroachment that they face. I must say that a lot of the problems in northern Iraq come from the Kurdish community. I hope that the Minister, before he sits down, will say something about this “19th province”. I know that he probably cannot give a commitment one way or another, but the reason the campaign for a 19th province has arisen is that the Christian community in Iraq feels that it is the only way that it can have some sort of protection, including its own militia and its own legal system.

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his long-standing interest in the subject. I hope that he is reassured by the very hands-on interest that the Minister with responsibility for Iraq is taking in this matter, including, as I have said, the number of meetings that he held only a week ago in Iraq to discuss it specifically.

The concern that the Government have about going down the track that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) suggests is that we would not wish to see Iraq divided up into provinces based on religious affiliation. We want Iraq as a whole to be a hospitable country for people of all faiths, which is why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made a particular point of meeting representatives of the Kurdistan regional government when he was in Iraq a week ago—it was not with a view to segregating Iraq into different religion-based districts.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire may know that the Iraqi authorities are carrying out a thorough investigation into the attacks, which has, we believe, led to the arrest in the past few days of individuals who may be linked to attacks against Christians. The Iraqi Prime Minister has called on the armed forces and the security forces to be on maximum alert and to secure mosques, churches and other places of worship.

The Iraqi Parliament—the Council of Representatives —has also been active in calling for the Government to do more. It has formally requested the Prime Minister to issue a statement condemning the attacks and to dedicate more resources to stopping them. It has called for the increased recruitment of Christians into the Iraqi security forces. A parliamentary committee, under the leadership of a Christian MP, has been set up to address the official reaction to the attacks. The British Government regard all those as promising steps in the right direction.

I reassure my hon. Friend that the Government will continue to urge the Iraqi Government to protect all communities, especially vulnerable minority groups, and to prosecute those who are found responsible for any acts of violence and intimidation that are carried out against people because of their political, ethnic or religious affiliation. As my hon. Friend will know, the UK has also discussed the current security situation in Iraq with EU partners, including at the Foreign Affairs Council on 22 November.

We are encouraged by responses from the Iraqi authorities suggesting that they take this matter very seriously, and we are pleased to see the renewed commitment to protecting all Iraqi citizens, including Christians. Prime Minister al-Maliki has said that his Government are ready to take whatever measures are viewed as necessary by Christian leaders

“to assure all citizens in general and the Christians of Iraq in particular so that everyone enjoys stability and safety”.

Some Members attending the debate may feel that it is one thing to express those good intentions, but another to deliver on them, and I accept that. However, the fact that they have been expressed in such emphatic terms is an encouraging development. I also hope that I have been able to indicate to those attending the debate that concrete actions are being taken, and we will continue to try to ensure that they go as far as possible and lead to desirable consequences.

We are aware of requests made by the Iraqi Human Rights Minister, Mrs Wijdan Salim, for support in developing some of Iraq’s counter-terrorism capabilities. Where appropriate, we will work with the Iraqi authorities to consider where our support is best applied. However, Prime Minister al-Maliki has publically committed to improving the security situation.

My hon. Friend may be aware of comments from the exiled archbishop of the Syriac Orthodox Church suggesting that Christians should leave Iraq. The Iraqi Christian community has made it clear that emigration is not the answer, and the British Government agree. Christians are one of Iraq’s indigenous populations, and all the religious leaders we have spoken with have reiterated that driving Christians from their homes is the goal of terrorists and not one that we should facilitate with offers of asylum.

During his recent trip to Iraq, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has responsibility for the middle east, met a number of senior Iraqi Christian figures. The clear sense was of a community that was vulnerable and under threat but determined not to allow the attacks to threaten the continued existence of Christians in Iraq. Prime Minister al-Maliki has commented that

“The countries that have welcomed the victims...of this attack”—

the attack on the Church—

“have done a noble thing, but that should not encourage emigration”.

At this point, I would like to pay tribute to the work of Canon Andrew White, who has been mentioned in the debate, and other religious leaders. We support initiatives that bring together different faith groups to promote tolerance, and I am pleased to hear that Denmark is supporting such initiatives with funding. I join my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire in paying tribute to the Danes for their commitment in that regard.

It is important to remember that Iraq has made a long-standing commitment to protect all its minorities. During the universal periodic review of Iraq carried out by the UN Human Rights Council in February 2010, the Iraqi authorities revealed that minorities, including Christians, had been subjected to grave violations at the hands of terrorist groups and militias. The Iraqi Government made a commitment to support the rights and freedoms of all minorities, in keeping with the guarantees set out in their constitution, and they restated their commitment to protect religious institutions and places of worship.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I am most grateful for the support that the Government are showing on this issue. Does the Minister agree that, in some ways, the actions and words of the Iraqi Government set an example to other surrounding countries about the way that religious minorities should be treated?

[Mr Browne]

I do up to a point. The level of willingness to respond to the problem, rather than to conceal it, is encouraging. We all share the concerns. There will be hon. Members who are not Christians but who nevertheless share the concerns about the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq. We want a country where people are free to practise their faith without interference, and we are keen to work towards that. We are encouraged that the Iraqi Government, and other senior figures within the Iraqi political environment, share that ambition. It would be extremely worrying were that not the case. There are Christians who hold prominent positions in Iraq, including, as I have said, roles in Parliament chairing a relevant committee. The fact that Christians are institutionalised in Iraq and not pushed to the fringes should encourage us. However, as other hon. Members have said, the situation remains far from desirable, and I hope that the progress is in the right direction.

The UK recognises the importance of protecting and defending the rights of religious minorities, not just in Iraq but worldwide. I will conclude the debate with a quote from the Foreign Secretary, which I hope will provide a wider context to our deliberations. During a recent speech in London on the subject of values he said,

“religious persecution is unacceptable to us at any time in any place.”

That is the position of the British Government. It applies to Christians just as much as to any other religious group, and it applies to Iraq just as to any other country. We will pursue a foreign policy in line with those objectives.

Local Government Funding

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Westminster Hall

13:28

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise this important matter on behalf of my constituents and of SIGOMA—the special interest group of municipal authorities. There is great concern among MPs in the SIGOMA group that we are facing one of the worst spending reviews ever experienced. It is likely to have a massive impact on every part of our public services, whether in education, health or any other area. I am pleased that so many of my colleagues have attended the debate, and I will try to give way to as many of them as I can. I know they will have major concerns about the impact of the spending review on their constituencies.

I believe we are likely to see massive and devastating cuts in our communities, and that the general public have no idea about the scale of the cuts heading their way. When people see the level of cuts, they will be concerned about their implications and the way that the Government are going about them. From day one, both I and the rest of the Opposition have accepted that there must be cuts in public services. We accept that local government must play its part in reducing the deficit. However, we are concerned about the speed of those cuts, the way in which they are being implemented and the unfairness of the cuts to the SIGOMA authorities.

My constituents accept that there needs to be a reduction in public spending and that local government must play its part in the cuts, but they have every reason to feel aggrieved that, at a time when they face massive cuts in their public services, the Government have cut tax for the bankers, who caused the problem, by £1 billion and have already turned their back on doing anything, realistically, about the massive bonuses that continue to be paid to bankers. They have now decided that they will not even publish the size of the bankers’ bonuses so that people can hold them accountable for their actions.

The least that my constituents should be able to expect is that any cuts are fair, that they protect the most deprived parts of our communities, that they take into account the unfair cuts that have already taken place, in May, and that they allow time for councils to adjust their budgets. That is one of our major concerns—that the cuts are front-loaded.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I want to ask my hon. Friend about that. The worst aspect of the cuts that people are seeing is the front-loading—the lack of time that there will be between the settlement and implementation. Does my hon. Friend think, as I do, that it is difficult to see any fairness, as was promised in the comprehensive spending review, in a situation in which some councils, in the most deprived areas, will see reductions in their budget next year of, it has been suggested, up to 25, 30 or 38%, whereas other councils, in the south, will see increases of an equal size—25 to 37%? It is hard to see how there has been fairness. The other promise in the CSR was that those parts of the country that depend on public sector jobs would not be hit the hardest. It is very hard to see those things. I wonder whether my hon. Friend can see them, because I cannot.

[Mr Watts]

It is very difficult to see any fairness in the system so far. We know that more cuts are on the way. We hope that they will be introduced more fairly and will take into account the unfairness of the last set of cuts, which hit the most deprived communities.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. Does he agree that this is not just a question of fairness? It is becoming increasingly apparent that there is a built-in unfairness in the system. Some authorities, of which Knowsley is one, as part of the SIGOMA group of local authorities, are likely to be disproportionately affected. Does he agree that in those circumstances it is important that damping be kept in place, so that the losses we will experience can to some extent be mitigated?

[Mr Watts]

We would hope, in relation to any massive cuts, that some damping would be introduced to ensure that local authorities do not face the full loss of grant, as they did under the previous Tory Government, who cut millions of pounds from local authorities overnight. The previous Labour Government, when they made changes, put in mechanisms to ensure that local authorities did not suffer in the same way as they had done with the Tory cuts. I hope that the situation will be fairer, that there will be some damping and that local authorities will have an opportunity to adjust their budgets.

[Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate and for the work he has done over many years on behalf of local government. I wonder whether he is aware of a question that I raised yesterday at oral questions to the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. Along with a number of other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I raised the issue of the threat of library closures in many communities because of the cuts to local authorities. I was trying to explain to the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), that the financial realities are different in different parts of the country. As my hon. Friend has said, in an area such as Barnsley, which has very low council tax receipts but high social needs, the pressures on the budget are hugely disproportionate compared with more wealthy areas in the south. The Minister replied that councils needed to show “a little imagination”, which I think demonstrates—

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions are supposed to be brief and to the point.

[Michael Dugher]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that shows how oblivious Ministers are to the financial realities in areas such as Barnsley and St Helens?

[Mr Watts]

I do. I am pleased that the Minister here is not the Secretary of State, because it is clear from the Secretary of State’s comments that he has no idea of the implications of the cuts he is advocating. The idea that the cuts can be dealt with through efficiency savings or by councils using their imaginations as they have not done in the past is ridiculous. I point out that many of the authorities facing the biggest cuts, including my own, are the most efficient and effective already.

My council is a five-star council that provides excellent education, social services and other council services. It has kept its council tax below inflation rates for the past 10 years, and it runs an effective partnership with the voluntary and private sectors, yet it faces up to £12.7 million in cuts in 2011-12 and up to £24 million in cuts by 2014-15, on top of a previous cut of £5.6 million from the working neighbourhoods fund. We also face the potential loss of enterprise growth funds, which have helped regenerate my area; the money is spent in partnership between the private, public and voluntary sectors. Clearly, it is not inefficient councils that face the biggest problems but councils that are well run and well managed and provide good services.

As colleagues and I have said, the Government’s record on the matter is not good. So far, cuts have hit the most deprived communities the hardest. They have been front-loaded, and the cuts to the working neighbourhoods fund have hit the most deprived communities in Britain. The record so far is not good.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the councils in the south to which he refers so freely as exceptionally well funded by wealthy local populations suffer exactly the same problem as those in the north? The cuts are fair and proportionate and carry on across the country. The level of funding in many northern councils is considerably higher per capita than in the south. I understand, of course, that the level of need is higher, but does he agree that pain is being felt all over the country and that the cuts are in fact fair?

[Mr Watts]

I accept that not all deprived communities are in the north. There are certainly deprived areas in the south, and they have been hit hardest as well. They have not been exempt. I do not say that there are no deprived councils in the south, because there certainly are. We need not go farther than Southwark to see major problems, as there are in many other parts of the country.

However, the tax base in most southern areas puts them in a much better position to deal with cuts than areas where the tax base is low, such as St Helens and the SIGOMA authorities. So far, the south-east has lost 13%, the south-west has lost 12% and the north-east and north-west have lost 16%. That demonstrates how unfair the cuts are. I recommend that the Minister read the SIGOMA document “All in this together”, which dispels the lie that we are in this together by showing that, and supporting the argument that, local authorities in the most deprived areas are being hit hardest.

[George Hollingbery]

I am sorry to interrupt again, but that goes to the heart of what I was saying. The level of subsidy per capita in Sedgefield, for example, is five to six times higher than in Hampshire county council. That means that the cuts can, to some degree, be more easily borne by those with much higher per capita funding. The proportion being removed in this element is right at the margin down in the south, and it hurts.

[Mr Watts]

Before it was changed by the new Government, the system of allocating resources was based on deprivation. A number of factors were to be taken into account, and an academic research document indicated where the grant should go. Unfortunately for many authorities, the Labour Government did not introduce all those changes but left money in some of the southern areas that should have been passed to the north. The changes were not fully implemented.

We would have no problem if an academic study was undertaken on the need to spend that took account of deprivation, if that is what the Government wanted to do. However, the Government are not doing that. Instead, they are finding ways to cut budgets for the most deprived councils without an academic study, and with no research documents to back their actions. Frankly, we think they are gerrymandering the system to ensure that their councils are not hit as badly as ours.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

rose—

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Mr Watts]

I give way first to my hon. Friend.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will my hon. Friend comment on this, as I know he is concerned about the matter and knows the information for SIGOMA authorities? My local authority of Salford is to have a 13% cut, taking only the cuts being inflicted by the Government, but the loss of the working neighbourhoods fund will take it up to a cut of 18% or 19%. The hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) is referring to councils that do not have unemployment problems of the sort that would need the working neighbourhoods fund—problems that the SIGOMA authorities definitely will have.

[Mr Watts]

My hon. Friend is right. That funding has made a tremendous difference for some of the country’s most deprived communities. The cuts will be a massive loss to them. The Government should be ashamed. If they are going to cut, they should do so in a way that protects the most deprived communities, not doing as they are and making cuts in the most deprived areas.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that areas such as Nuneaton in Warwickshire were particularly underfunded under the Labour Government? He mentioned gerrymandering, but that seems to have been the case for many years when comparing the funding for shire counties such as Warwickshire with that for the Labour heartlands in the north, and particularly those in the north-east.

[Mr Watts]

That argument is put forward by many councils. They say that everyone should get the same; if everyone does not get the same because deprivation is taken into account, they say that that it is unfair. The grant system took account of the ability of local councils to raise local tax and of the deprivation within their communities. The hon. Gentleman suggests that everyone should get the same, regardless of deprivation. As I said before, I would have no problem if the Government were going about the job by doing some academic work and producing a study that people could consult, taking account of existing need and deprivation. That is not happening, and the Government should be ashamed of their proposals.

The Government cuts will go so far as to hit the most deprived communities, and they are front-loaded. We have lost the neighbourhoods fund. As I said before, the south has been protected but not the north. I was saying that the Minister should read the SIGOMA document, which goes into far more detail about the unfairness of the proposed cuts. He should also read “Hard Times”, a document produced two weeks ago by the Industrial Communities Alliance. Hard times is what our communities are in for. That document shows the devastating effect that the cuts in public spending will have on our areas. Anyone who reads it could not help but understand the deprivation that will exist as a result of the cuts.

We fear that the cuts are heading our way. We could lose 33% of our grant in 2010, and a further 22% by 2011. We hope that that is not the case, but we know from what the Government have done so far that that is the likely impact. There is no way in which efficiencies can stop the wholesale closure of libraries, and we will also have fewer policemen and firemen, and fewer social workers, if that level of cuts is introduced in our communities.

On top of that, the Government have top-sliced the council block grant to pay for the freeze on council tax. That will make the situation even worse in communities such as mine, as they will be less able to provide services. Those communities will lose as much as another £500,000 of grant, which they would have received, had the grant not been top-sliced. We understand that SIGOMA authorities may face cuts of up to £44 million over the next few years.

The new homes bonus scheme, which is also hitting local authorities, is intended to provide resources to encourage new homes to be built. Again, I do not think we will do well out of that. It is not that local authorities such as St Helens and the SIGOMA authorities do not want to provide new homes; but given the devastating effect that the Government’s cuts will have in our areas, I do not think there will be much of a market for building new homes. Where we have real deprivation in our housing, we will have fewer resources with which to provide homes for our constituents.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. He is absolutely right about housing, for which there is a great demand in Rochdale. Another problem with the cuts being inflicted is that local authorities are cutting the money they give to local charities that support homelessness services. Petrus community trust and the Sanctuary trust in my constituency are losing thousands of pounds as a result of the cuts, and now cannot even provide for homeless people. It is vulnerable groups in deprived communities who are feeling the effects.

[Mr Watts]

Most local councils and MPs will know that the voluntary sector is very much supported by local government. It cannot exist without funding and support from local government. I worry that not only will we have cuts in council services, but the voluntary sector will be hit as a result. I fear for the safety net of services that are now provided by the voluntary sector, but which will disappear if the cuts are made.

What are we trying to get from today’s debate? We would like an assurance from the Minister that any further cuts will be fair, that more help will be given to the most deprived parts of the country, rather than less, and that any cuts will be transparent so that it can be easily understood how the Government are making the changes to ensure that those in the most deprived communities get the most support. We would like an assurance that any cuts that are introduced will take into account the cuts that are already disadvantaging us. Any future cuts we face should take into account the fact that we have lost more than anyone else.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on his excellent speech, in which he is trying to be fair to the Government. Halton, which has one of the most outstanding councils in the country, has already had £1.2 million cut from its education budget, compared with £600,000 from Cheshire East and Cheshire West, which are more affluent boroughs. It has lost massively and disproportionately as a result of the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme and the education maintenance allowance cut, which has also hit other deprived communities. Given their track record, how can we expect the Government to be fair to deprived communities such as Halton, St Helens, Knowsley and others? The Government somehow believe that a 28% average cut will not hit the most vulnerable.

[Mr Watts]

My hon. Friend has made an excellent contribution. Our concern is not just about cuts in local government services, because we have already had cuts right across the board and face even bigger cuts in welfare. As the “Hard Times” document demonstrates, many of our communities are not in a position to fight back and will go to the wall. We are throwing those communities into abject poverty, which will have serious implications for our communities and the country as a whole.

I advise the Minister, before those draconian cuts are made, to take into account all the losses of grant that are taking place. A substantial amount of money is already being taken out of the local economy, which is having an impact on the private sector in our communities. Many of the shops, retailers and suppliers already face major problems. I spoke recently to a gentleman in the construction industry who told me that all his orders have now run out and that within six months he would be laying off hundreds of workers as a consequence. The economy cannot generate itself; it needs the support of the Government. That is why all our previous policies took into account deprivation and the need to spend.

What do we want? We certainly want any changes that are made to take into account the tax base and the ability of local government to raise money. We have already seen some scandals, such as the fact that Westminster council’s ability to raise millions of pounds every year from car parking charges is just ignored and not taken into account, which allows it to provide good services at a low cost to local taxpayers. It is a scandal that that has been allowed to continue for many years. I hope that when the Minister is looking at any change, he takes into account that some very wealthy councils are in a much better position than my authority and the SIGOMA authorities to deal with the levels of cuts that we have seen.

[Barbara Keeley]

Yesterday the Chancellor was optimistic about the recovery. So would my hon. Friend, like me, like DCLG Ministers to approach the Treasury about re-phasing the cuts to local government budgets, so that they will not be so front-loaded? That would help.

[Mr Watts]

As I understand it, most—in fact, all—local authorities believe that the way the Government have front-loaded cuts is wrong and does not give them time to adjust their budgets. The Government could have switched it round and had the most severe cuts in the latter part of the period. We know why they are doing this: frankly, we are seeing all sorts of political shenanigans going on because they want to make all these draconian cuts now, so they can have some tax cuts in the run-up to the general election. That is a short-term view, given the problems that will be created. The Government’s view of the economy as a whole is very optimistic, and what we fear will happen with local council spending will shove most of our economy into recession, if not depression. There are areas around the country that may take 50 years to recover from the cuts that are on their way—places such as Barnsley and some of the north-east councils. They will have a dramatic effect for a very long time.

I hope the Minister will take those things into account when he responds. I hope he can give us some assurance that, when he makes changes, they will be fair and transparent, will take into account deprivation factors and will put resources where they are most needed; and that he will look at the tax base to ensure that those who can afford to pay a bit more council tax and can afford to receive less grant than they are receiving do not continue to receive higher levels of grant. There was a time when—and I do not think things have changed from when I was council leader many years ago—if we received the sort of income Westminster gets from grants, car parking and all the other things, we could have had no council tax at all and sent every one of our constituents on a holiday to Spain every year. That is the level of fiddle that has gone on with the system, and it needs to come to an end. Fairness needs to be put back into it.

13:52

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts, and a pleasure to respond to this important debate initiated by the hon. Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts), to whom I am sure we are all grateful. It is an important topic. It arises at this time of year every time the local government finance settlement is coming up. Inevitably, there are debates in advance of the settlement and, understandably, hon. Members seek to get the Minister to say things about the detail of the settlement. The Minister, regardless of party, says, “You’ll have to be a bit more patient because the detail as far as it affects local authorities is set out in the settlement itself, which will be laid before the House shortly”. I say that because that is the factual position. I want to respond to some of the matters raised, but I am sure that you, Mr Betts, and hon. Members who have participated in the debate, who are well experienced in local government matters, know that I am not in a position today to set out the individual impacts of the funding settlement on particular local authorities. However, I can make it clear that the provisional settlement will be done in the usual way. It will be announced shortly, and we will provide as much information as we can to enable local authorities to set their budgets.

This debate gives us a chance to look at the overall position. It is a position that arises, first, in relation to the financial situation, but it is actually broader than that. It is unfortunate that the opportunity has not been taken to put what has to be done on local government finance in the context of the Government’s broader agenda of handing more power and flexibility to local authorities. I agree with the hon. Member for St Helens North: the fact is that we need to reduce the deficit. Reductions in spending have to be made, and local government, as a significant part of the public spend, has to play its part. That much is common ground, but we are seeking to reduce spending constructively, and there I have to part company with the hon. Gentleman.

With respect to those on the Opposition Benches who have participated in the debate, there has been almost a competition—dare I say it—to come up with the most overcooked, overheated and exaggerated language possible. Frankly, it does no justice to the seriousness of the subject. Opposition Members have chosen to adopt a regrettable approach. It will make cheap headlines in a press release, but it does not advance the argument.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister must know—and if he does not, he should know—that councils in the north-west are now looking at having to make cuts of £35 million, £40 million and £50 million. If he thinks that that is fair and balanced, we will all be very upset next week. Last night, Stockport council, a Lib-Dem council, announced the cutting of 400 jobs, and the Local Government Association has suggested that the number of job cuts will be 140,000.

[Robert Neill]

I have seen those figures. I have also seen the SIGOMA document, which I read with interest. I have met SIGOMA representatives and I am happy to continue to do so. I want to take the hon. Lady to task a little. She referred to the reduction in funding for the working neighbourhoods fund. Yes, absolutely right—and who decided to do that? Her Government. The Labour Government made it clear that the working neighbourhoods fund was a three-year fund due to end in March 2011. The previous Government—the Labour Government—were committed before the general election to cutting it, so I am not taking any lectures from anyone on the impacts of that.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Watts]

Will the Minister give way?

[Robert Neill]

I shall make a little progress before I give way. Neither will I take lectures from Opposition Members about the need to reduce the deficit and how we should do it. The simple fact is that, thanks to their Government’s policies, about which I have not heard a word of apology, we are paying £120 million a day just to pay off the interest on their debts. That money is lost for ever to council services on the front line. If we carried on down the Opposition’s route, the pressure on local authorities would be all the greater because we would be paying up to about £100 million more by the end of the Parliament in debt interest. I am not taking lectures from the Labour party about our attempting to balance the nation’s book, when it is its prodigality that has placed local authorities under such pressure.

[Mr Watts]

The Minister must get off the rant that we hear regularly from the Front Bench. There has been a world recession caused not by the Government, but by banks. At a time when the general public face such draconian cuts, they want to know why the Government have given the bankers a £1 billion tax cut, refuse to act on the bonuses and are now refusing to publish the size of the bonuses that bankers are receiving. The real enemy is not the previous Labour Government. They were faced with a meltdown of financial systems in this country and throughout the world, so it is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to blame the financial crisis on that Government. As he knows, the crisis is worldwide and it is one that has been caused by the bankers, not the Government.

[Robert Neill]

That is as discredited an alibi as we hear nowadays, but I credit the hon. Gentleman for his loyalty in still trotting it out.

Council tax payers throughout the country know that their council tax doubled during the 13 years or so of the Labour Government. That was not anything to do with the world crisis. It was to do with mismanagement of the economy and, ironically, the sometimes perverse workings of the system of local government finance which that Government put in place.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

We are certainly seeing a lot of synthetic rage from Opposition Members. Does my hon. Friend agree that, under the previous Labour Government—and had they formed this Government—local authorities such as Nuneaton and Bedworth and Warwickshire were looking at 20% cuts in Government funding?

[Robert Neill]

That is entirely right, which is why the rage is synthetic, and why I hope that hon. Members, including Opposition Members, will welcome £650 million of additional money that the Government have put in to support the council tax freeze and which will be embedded in the base budgets of those authorities. I hope that they recognise the steps that we have taken specifically to protect services for the most vulnerable, such as £1 billion of grant funding for social care by 2014-15 within the £2.4 billion that we have rolled into formula grant. By rolling more money into formula grant, we give local authorities more flexibility to reflect their own priorities and demands.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Robert Neill]

I shall make a little more progress. An extra £1 billion of extra funding has gone in through the NHS budget to break down the barriers between health and social care. As I said, we are fully funding the council tax freeze and embedding it into the base. We will make £200 million of capitalisation available in 2011-12 to deal with restructuring costs. Those are positive things.

It being Two o’clock, the sitting was adjourned without Question put.

Written Ministerial Statements

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Written Statements

Tuesday 30 November 2010

Pensions Tax Discussion Document

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

On 14 October the Government announced that from April 2011, the annual allowance (AA) for tax-privileged pension saving will be reduced from £255,000 to £50,000 and that from April 2012 the lifetime allowance (LTA) will be reduced from £1.8 million to £1.5 million. These changes will generate around £4 billion annual revenue in the steady state, protecting the public finances.

As a result of measures taken in the design of the new pensions tax regime, the Government believe that few individuals will incur tax charges from exceeding the AA. However, it recognises that in some exceptional cases, typically of long-serving individuals in defined benefit schemes, it is possible that large charges could occur. These charges reflect a significant uplift in pension value in a given year. The Government have today published a discussion document on options to meet high annual allowances charges. These include payment from pension benefits or by the pension scheme. This document is now available online on the Treasury website, and has been deposited in the House Library.

The Government intend to publish draft clauses on the chosen approach by February 2011.

Alcohol Taxation Review

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)]

I am today publishing further information about potential tax measures following the review of alcohol taxation, I am making this update available on the HM Treasury website and a copy has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

These measures are part of the wider Government action to tackle problem drinking due to be announced this week by the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

The Government recognise that in some areas taxation can have a role in helping to address the harms associated with problem drinking. For example, a change to the definition of cider has already been made resulting in increased duty on cheap, strong ciders strongly associated with public health concerns.

To complement this change, the Government intend to introduce a new additional duty on beers over 7.5% abv (alcohol by volume) in strength. This will help to address the consumption of cheap, “super strength” lagers that are also associated with high, and dangerous, levels of alcohol consumption.

Changes will also be made to introduce a reduced rate of duty on beers produced at an alcoholic strength of 2.8% abv or below. This measure will help encourage the production and consumption of lower-strength beers and give responsible drinkers additional choice.

These measures will continue to be developed with a final announcement made at Budget 2011. Draft Finance Bill clauses will be published alongside other Finance Bill measures on 9 December 2011 as announced recently by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Official Report, 9 November, column 10WS.

There are no further changes to the structure of the duty on alcohol as a result of this review. Decisions about duty rates remain a matter for the Chancellor at the Budget. The Treasury will continue to engage with industry and other interested groups ahead of the Budget.

Light Protected Patrol Vehicle

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

Following the announcement I gave on 12 October 2010, Official Report, columns 9-10WS, regarding the award of preferred bidder status to Force Protection Europe, I am pleased to announce the successful contract negotiation of the Light Protected Patrol Vehicle (LPPV) competition. The new vehicle, Foxhound, will replace the existing Snatch Land Rovers and Weapons Mount Installation Kit (WMIK) vehicles on operations in Afghanistan. An initial tranche of 200 vehicles is being procured through the urgent operational requirements process, and we expect the first vehicles to be delivered for training in late 2011 prior to their first operational use in spring 2012. Further buys of Foxhound will be subject to the confirmation of our wider requirement.

Force Protection Europe’s vehicle represents leading-edge technology and will provide an unprecedented balance of protection, weight and agility for a vehicle of its class. Foxhound is a new design developed specifically to meet the requirements of UK armed forces, and is only now possible due to the considerable investment by the Ministry of Defence and UK industry in this technology. Foxhound is designed and manufactured in the UK, creating or sustaining over 750 jobs. It is also ideally placed to take advantage of the export market, which the Government are fully committed to supporting.

Pre-EU Energy Council Meeting

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

In advance of the forthcoming Energy Council in Brussels on 3 December, I am writing to outline the agenda items to be discussed. I will represent the UK.

The main items on the agenda at the Energy Council will be the recently published Commission documents, the “Energy 2020” strategy and the communication on energy infrastructure priorities. The Commission will present the two communications, followed by a discussion by Ministers on the basis of questions provided by the Belgian presidency. This discussion is intended to help prepare for the debate among Heads of Government/State at the energy-themed European Council in February. At the Energy Council, I will welcome the publication of the communications, and support their strong emphasis on energy efficiency, the internal market, overcoming barriers to infrastructure investment and the development and deployment of low-carbon technologies. I will also emphasise the need for the debate at the February European Council to focus on the major issues facing EU energy policy as the EU moves to a low-carbon, energy-secure future while preserving its international competitiveness.

Ministers at the Energy Council will also adopt Council conclusions on a consumer energy policy and on the Commission’s recent communication on the safety of offshore oil and gas activities. We broadly welcome the conclusions and expect them to be adopted without discussion. The Commission will then update the Council on a number of international energy relations events and on the state of play of the European energy recovery programme. The Greek delegation will also inform the Council of a “green energy development initiative” adopted at a meeting of the Black Sea Economic Co-operation Organisation in October.

In the morning of the Council, I will sign a memorandum of understanding on the North sea offshore grid initiative with colleagues from Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland, Luxembourg, Denmark and Norway. The MOU commits the signatories to working together to identify the barriers and explore ways of tackling a more co-ordinated development of offshore grids. It recognises the role that the renewable energy resources of the North sea can play in meeting the EU’s climate and energy targets and the benefits it can bring in terms of security of supply and market integration.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

The Minister of State with responsibility for agriculture and food, my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), and the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for natural environment and fisheries, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), are representing the United Kingdom at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 29 and 30 November.

There are two fisheries and four agriculture items on the agenda. Discussion will take place on the following:

Total allowable catches and quotas for deep-sea species;

EU-Norway fisheries agreement: discussion with Norway about management of joint stocks in North sea/north Atlantic as part of the December fisheries package;

Plant protection product 1, 3—dichloropropene: the Commission has proposed banning this soil fumigant;

Report on possibility of the European Food Safety Agency charging fees:

Commission communication on the future of the CAP: this is the first chance of the Council to respond to this recently published communication

Communication on the Farm Advisory Service: routine report on its operation.

There are currently six items under any other business

1. Long-term fisheries management plans—information supplied by the Commission

2. Conference on the reform of the plant health regime: report from presidency

3. Conference on animal welfare: report from presidency

4. 2011 budget: update from the Commission on handling agriculture payments, should the EU 2011 budget not be agreed before the end of the year

5. Conference on food security: report back by the Dutch on their recent conference

6. G20 and agriculture: report from the French on their plans for their G20.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

A report on “The contribution that reporting of greenhouse gas emissions makes to the UK meeting its climate change objectives” will be laid before Parliament today.

The report is laid to meet the requirement in section 84 of the Climate Change Act 2008. Copies will be made available in the Vote Office and can also be accessed on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/reporting/index.htm.

Animals Scientific Procedures Inspectorate (Wickham Laboratories)

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)]

The Government have today published a report by the Animals Scientific Procedures Inspectorate (the Home Office inspectorate) of a review of compliance at Wickham Laboratories, a contract research laboratory designated as a scientific procedure establishment under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (the 1986 Act). Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House and posted on the Home Office website.

Wickham Laboratories was the subject of a report published in November 2009 by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) in which a number of detailed issues and concerns were set out based on material gathered by an investigator. In the light of the BUAV report, my predecessor as Home Office Minister responsible for the implementation of the 1986 Act asked the Home Office inspectorate to review and report on the issues and concerns raised in it and for recommendations on any action required.

The review has been thorough and the review report addresses all of the key issues and concerns raised by the BUAV. The Government are grateful for the report and accept its main findings and conclusions. While the majority of concerns raised by the BUAV in their report have not been substantiated, the report identifies a number of potential breaches of the conditions of Wickham Laboratories’ certificate of designation and of one project licence held there. Action to deal with these issues is now in hand.

With regard to the monitoring of the establishment, the review has found that Home Office inspectors have maintained a regular programme of inspections and raised issues of compliance and best practice with staff in a number of areas of activity. However, relatively frequent changes of inspector over the last five years have led to some problems ensuring issues raised by inspectors were followed up by Wickham Laboratories.

It is also accepted that some potential breaches of licence and certificate conditions were not identified by the regular inspection programme. Accordingly, the review recommends measures for stricter oversight of Wickham Laboratories and to ensure that procedures for the handover of establishments between inspectors are always carried out fully. These are being taken forward as a matter of urgency.

Action is also in hand to identify and take forward wider lessons to be learned from the review with regard to the implementation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 more generally.

Investigatory Powers Tribunal

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I am pleased to announce that Her Majesty the Queen has reappointed members to the tribunal (including a president and vice president) by letters patent for a period of five years, as provided by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The reappointed tribunal members are:

Lord Justice John Mummery - President

Mr Justice Michael Burton - Vice President

Sir Richard Gaskell

Sheriff Principle John McInnes QC

Mr Richard Seabrook QC

The tribunal considers proceedings brought under section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 against the intelligence agencies and, in respect of the investigatory powers covered by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, by all public authorities. It also considers all complaints against the intelligence agencies and all complaints against public authorities in respect of the powers in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The tribunal, which is independent of Government, has full powers to investigate and decide any case within its jurisdiction.

Scotland Bill (Publication)

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

Today the Scotland Bill has been introduced in the UK Parliament. This Bill delivers the commitment in the coalition Government’s programme for government to strengthen and deepen the Scottish devolution settlement. Our proposals, based on the recommendations of the Commission on Scottish Devolution, will extend and develop the arrangements set out in the Scotland Act 1998, which established the first democratically elected Parliament for Scotland.

The Commission was set up by the Scottish Parliament and supported by the UK Government. The Commission’s remit was:

“To review the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 in the light of experience and to recommend any changes to the present constitutional arrangements that would enable the Scottish Parliament to serve the people of Scotland better, improve the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament, and continue to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom”.

The Commission, under the chairmanship of Professor Sir Kenneth Caiman, produced a detailed report that was founded on a robust evidence base, sound analysis and extensive engagement with people in Scotland. The consensus arrived at by the Commission was clear: the devolution settlement in Scotland has been “a remarkable and substantial success”. The Commission’s key conclusion was that devolution has brought clear benefits for Scotland, ensuring that Scottish solutions can be developed for Scottish problems. The Scottish Parliament has established itself firmly in public life, bringing greater accountability to the people of Scotland, and innovation in both policy and working methods.

But crucially, the Commission also highlighted a number of areas for reform within the devolution settlement to ensure that it continues to deliver for people in Scotland. The key area of reform related to financial accountability. The Scotland Bill will ensure that from now on the Scottish Parliament and Government can be held to account not just for how they spend money, but also for how they raise it. This imbalance between power and responsibility within the existing Scotland Act will be addressed in the Bill introduced today.

The Scotland Bill creates a new Scottish rate of income tax. The current block grant funding from the UK Government to Scotland will be adjusted in exchange for power for the Scottish Parliament to raise its own taxes. This new tax-raising power will apply alongside the existing UK-wide income tax. In Scotland, the UK rates of income tax will be reduced by 10p from the lower, higher and top rates of income tax. The Scottish Parliament will then make a tax decision to levy a single additional rate, which can either match UK rates, or go higher, or lower. This will replace the Scottish Parliament’s existing power to vary income tax in Scotland by up to 3p, up or down.

In line with the Commission recommendations, the finance changes will be introduced carefully with transitional arrangements in place to ensure there is no windfall gain or adverse shock to the Scottish budget. This new tax-raising power will be in place for the Scottish Parliament elected in 2015. The Scotland Bill also devolves responsibility for two smaller taxes to the Scottish Government: stamp duty land tax and landfill tax. In addition, the Bill will provide the Scottish Government with a substantial power to borrow to finance capital expenditure and a power to borrow to finance current expenditure when tax receipts are less than expected.

The Scotland Bill also sets out a number of adjustments to the distribution of reserved and devolved responsibilities. The Scottish Parliament and Government will take on power to regulate air weapons, set the drink-drive limit and set national speed limits. The Commission, on the basis of the evidence, concluded that some areas would be better administered at the UK level and so in two areas—the regulation of health professions and the administration of corporate insolvency—the Scotland Bill will transfer power back to the UK Parliament and Ministers.

The Scotland Bill is just part of the Government’s response to the Commission’s recommendations. The Bill is accompanied by a Command Paper which sets out how the Government are responding to all the recommendations from the Commission, not only improving the legal framework that established devolution in Scotland, but also supporting the relationships between officials, Ministers and Parliaments to ensure its continuing success.

The Scotland Bill demonstrates the determination of the coalition Government to ensure that the Scottish Parliament is empowered to meet the needs of the Scottish people. Both the Bill and the accompanying Command Paper set out the bold reforms the Government are taking to strengthen the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. Once the measures included in the Scotland Bill and this paper are fully implemented, a historic shift in power will have been accomplished. The Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers will have more powers, be more accountable, and be able to be more responsive to Scotland’s needs within the framework of a strong and stable United Kingdom.

Copies of the Command Paper which accompanies the Bill have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and the Vote Office.

Housing Benefit Reform (Private Rented Sector)

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

In June 2010, the Government announced a number of measures that will contain housing benefit expenditure and create a fairer system of support by taking steps to ensure that people on benefit are not living in accommodation that would be out of reach of most people in work. In its first step to reform housing benefit, the Government are amending legislation in relation to customers living in the private rented sector, primarily affecting customers whose housing benefit is assessed according to local housing allowance rules.

I have today laid the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2010 and amendments to the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997 that will bring into effect measures to:

i. remove the five-bedroom local housing allowance rate so that the maximum level is for a four-bedroom property.

ii. introduce absolute caps so that local housing allowance weekly rates cannot exceed £250 for a one-bedroom property; £290 for a two-bedroom property; £340 for a three-bedroom property; £400 for a four-bedroom property.

iii. remove the up to £15 weekly housing benefit excess that some customers can receive under the local housing allowance arrangements.

iv. include an additional bedroom within the size criteria used to assess housing benefit claims in the private rented sector where a disabled person, or someone with a long-term health condition, has a proven need for overnight care and this is provided by a non-resident carer.

v. set local housing allowance rates at the 30th percentile of rents in each broad rental market area rather than the median.

The Government are convinced it is absolutely necessary to take urgent steps to manage housing benefit expenditure, and to ensure that people who make new claims for housing benefit in the private rented sector are prevented from claiming the higher rates of local housing allowance. The Government have listened to advice from the Social Security Advisory Committee and from key stakeholders in relation to the implementation of these measures and, clearly, it is essential that existing customers have sufficient time to adjust to their new circumstances. In order to ensure a smooth transition for the changes in 2011, the measures will come into force as follows:

The measure to provide an additional bedroom within the size criteria for some customers with a non-resident carer will proceed in April 2011. All claimants who meet the criteria will be entitled immediately from April.

All changes that will adjust the way local housing allowance rates are calculated will come into force from April 2011 for new claims to ensure the measures are fiscally neutral over the spending review period. Existing claimants affected by the changes to local housing allowance rules will continue at their current rate of benefit until their claim is reviewed by their local authority; they will then have a further period of transitional protection at their current local housing allowance rate of up to nine months if there has not been a relevant change of circumstances. No one will be able to receive more in benefit than they pay out in rent once their claim has been reviewed.

In addition to the funding announced to increase the discretionary housing payment fund, the Government have allocated a further £50 million over the spending review period to support the implementation of these measures. This will provide targeted support to help meet the housing needs of claimants who are affected by the changes, and we will work with local government on its allocation.

The Government intend that the measures they are introducing to adjust local housing allowance rates will act to reduce rents in the private rented sector. To support this, the Government are temporarily widening the discretion of local authorities to make direct payments to the landlord in some circumstances where it will support tenants in retaining or securing a tenancy. The Government will work closely with local authorities to ensure this provision is used only in very specific circumstances where landlords are reducing rents to a level that is affordable for claimants.